Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Steedeel]

Yes, but the quality downloads are only available illegally. Sky Hd is a different matter. Their picture quality is very decent but i don't think you can class a rip of a movie from that source as a download. That is not really what we were talking about.

Anyway i think my passion for film and Bluray sometimes results in heated discussions , but to call me a troll was a bit much. Let's forget about it and get on with watching and enjoying our films!


Agreed?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The issue is that if someone starts with that (i.e. the business is dying overall.) and that is enough then so i dl music and anything music related. For me if someone says CD is dying, that means that there will be a time (probably not to distant) when one can buy music but not CDs. The same way VHS died and DVD is dying. market % wise CD has not really lost any raw ground and has not been in a long time.

Really? if you made $94,000 in 2000 and $29,000 in 2009, would you say "I haven't really lost any ground because the world economy also declined"? Because that's the ratio of how much CD has lost. The fact that the music business overall has gotten smaller doesn't help the argument.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Really? if you made $94,000 in 2000 and $29,000 in 2009, would you say "I haven't really lost any ground because the world economy also declined"? Because that's the ratio of how much CD has lost. The fact that the music business overall has gotten smaller doesn't help the argument.

Can you not see the reason CD sales are falling is partly/mostly because the business is falling? Digital hasn't exactly taken up the slack. Or is the whole downturn in the industry people refusing to buy albums because they don't want to purchase CD's? Why then haven't digital album sales taken up the slack? Put something on the CD's people want to buy, and they will. May even buy digital albums as well.

[Afrobean]

I don't know why you guys are even talking about CDs.

Music is something completely different than movies. Just because people are cool with buying downloads of low quality music doesn't mean that they're OK with buying downloads of low quality movies.

In fact, the evidence is pretty clear that most people definitely do not want to download low quality movies. Some are OK with streaming low quality movies, but that's just going to cut away from the rental market. Those people weren't buying necessarily anyway, and if they DID decide to buy after streaming, they'd be entirely more likely to buy it on disc.

[KrugStillo]

Maybe if the music industry released some halfway decent albums they would still make money. When the film industry releases crap they lose money, when they release good product they make money. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that we are living in a creatively bankrupt era. Remakes, sequals, comic book adaptions, etc. Where are the real movies and albums, the ones being made by actual artists.

I love film and music and will always be a supporter. I am also very happy to finally be able to watch movies at home the way the techs see them when they make the transfers. However I am a collector and I need physical media to get my fix.

Plus there will NEVER be a time when ISP's have the capability to stream and download BD quality files because as one person already stated at current speeds it takes like 4 hours to download a BD copy. Even if they doubled their speeds it would still take 2 hours to do it. Most people are not gonna feel like waiting that long to get a copy of a film.

In conclusion, physical media is going nowhere. There will always be a market for it. That being said companies like Netflix and HD cable streaming will also stay because their will always be "Renters" that just want to watch and not own. I however will continue to own.

But I have made a vow that this is the last format I own. Why do I need even better quality than BD. I can see the pencil marks in Disney animation now. It can't really go much further.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I don't know why you guys are even talking about CDs.

Music is something completely different than movies. Just because people are cool with buying downloads of low quality music doesn't mean that they're OK with buying downloads of low quality movies.

In fact, the evidence is pretty clear that most people definitely do not want to download low quality movies. Some are OK with streaming low quality movies, but that's just going to cut away from the rental market. Those people weren't buying necessarily anyway, and if they DID decide to buy after streaming, they'd be entirely more likely to buy it on disc.

This discussion started out in it's own thread about physical media disappearing in less than a decade. A concept that is even more ridiculous than discussing CD's on a Blu-ray forum.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Rob71 is right, digital downloading hasn't picked up the slack of declining music sales, well at least not legally anyway, but illegal downloads don't count or matter at all in arguments about physical vs DD, because illegal downloaders only download because they can get content for free (and is the easiest way to get illegal content), not because they have actually chosen DD as their preferred method. If Illegal downloading and piracy was eliminated overnight (which is never going to happen, so I'm talking hypothetically), and everyone only had the choice to buy content from here on in, then most people who currently download music illegally for free, would in fact make the jump back to cd's, because most people want physical copies when they actually have to spend their hard earned money, but when someone can get something for free, they will take it anyway they can get it and are not as fussed.

Well, I do think that there is a bit of a difference with music (and I say this as someone who generally supports physical media).

That being the whole "having to buy a whole CD with 12 songs that I don't want to get the 1 song that I do want" argument.

Sure, there are some people out there who will want mulitple songs or even all songs from an album, and they will want to buy the CD. Or there are people who also like the physical aspect of physical media (and might collect music CDs the way many people here, myself included, collect movies on Blu-Ray).

But I know that before music downloading was an option, I would often buy a CD for just 1 or 2 songs. Sure, I would given the rest a listen to see if I like any of them, and on occasion I would find an extra song here or there that I would end up liking. But I can't say that it was worth the $10 - $20 per CD just to discover one or two extra songs once in a blue moon.


My contrast, now I can just download the one or two songs that I want for about $1 a piece. The MP3s from Amazon do not have any DRM restrictions. And I think that Itunes pretty much elminated some DRM at some point (though I'm not as sure about that). And the files are small enough that they are easy to back up a large amount of them on a single flash drive or something like that.

I think that's what a lot of people are doing now and that's also a large part of why the music industry is losing money. Many people are paying $1 for a song as opposed to $10, $15, or $20 that used to be spent on an entire CD. Even when you take out the portion of the CD price that pays for creating & packaging the physical media and the portion that is profit for the store from which it is purchased, that's still a big chunk of money that the record companies aren't getting now.

But, I'm actually okay with this in the sense that (with very rare exceptions) I've usually only wanted 1 or 2 songs on a CD, but I end up paying almost the same price as I do for a full lenth movie just to get a 3-4 minute song.


Part of the benefit of digital music as well is that music, in general, is something often "consumed" en mass with people listening to multiple songs in a row. That's why even before we had downloading, ipods, or CD burners, people were making mixed tapes, etc. So, something like the ipod makes sense. It's a lot easier to throw a party and have music playing with little to no maintanence of having to swap out CDs or whatever. If someone wants to go for a jog, they have their playlist ready to go. And it's even convenient for people who are just sitting at home listening to music.


Movies, on the otherhand, are mostly 'consumed' one at a time. Sure, people may sit down and have a marathon of a movie trilogy or something, but with very few expecptions, there probably aren't too many people out there watching more than 2 or 3 movies in a row on a regular basis. So, swapping out a disc isn't as inconvenient, and assures long term access.

Also while portable devices have changed things somewhat, I just don't think watching movies "on the go" will ever be the same thing as listening to music that way. You can listen to music while you drive in your own car. Watching a movie would just be dangerous. I can see having portable movies when traveling long distances by plane or train, but for people who don't do that on a regular basis, it's a moot point.

There's just a big difference overall.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Also while portable devices have changed things somewhat, I just don't think watching movies "on the go" will ever be the same thing as listening to music that way. You can listen to music while you drive in your own car. Watching a movie would just be dangerous.

I remember reading an article a few months ago about a guy that was hit by a car and killed. He was watching The Office on his iPhone. So yeah I don't think it will be much of an issue with films. The Darwin Effect will thin the herd of those people and allow us higher evolved individuals who prefer the superiority of discs to continue improving the human race.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Well, I do think that there is a bit of a difference with music (and I say this as someone who generally supports physical media).

That being the whole "having to buy a whole CD with 12 songs that I don't want to get the 1 song that I do want" argument.

Sure, there are some people out there who will want mulitple songs or even all songs from an album, and they will want to buy the CD. Or there are people who also like the physical aspect of physical media (and might collect music CDs the way many people here, myself included, collect movies on Blu-Ray).

But I know that before music downloading was an option, I would often buy a CD for just 1 or 2 songs. Sure, I would given the rest a listen to see if I like any of them, and on occasion I would find an extra song here or there that I would end up liking. But I can't say that it was worth the $10 - $20 per CD just to discover one or two extra songs once in a blue moon.


My contrast, now I can just download the one or two songs that I want for about $1 a piece. The MP3s from Amazon do not have any DRM restrictions. And I think that Itunes pretty much elminated some DRM at some point (though I'm not as sure about that). And the files are small enough that they are easy to back up a large amount of them on a single flash drive or something like that.

I think that's what a lot of people are doing now and that's also a large part of why the music industry is losing money. Many people are paying $1 for a song as opposed to $10, $15, or $20 that used to be spent on an entire CD. Even when you take out the portion of the CD price that pays for creating & packaging the physical media and the portion that is profit for the store from which it is purchased, that's still a big chunk of money that the record companies aren't getting now.

But, I'm actually okay with this in the sense that (with very rare exceptions) I've usually only wanted 1 or 2 songs on a CD, but I end up paying almost the same price as I do for a full lenth movie just to get a 3-4 minute song.


Part of the benefit of digital music as well is that music, in general, is something often "consumed" en mass with people listening to multiple songs in a row. That's why even before we had downloading, ipods, or CD burners, people were making mixed tapes, etc. So, something like the ipod makes sense. It's a lot easier to throw a party and have music playing with little to no maintanence of having to swap out CDs or whatever. If someone wants to go for a jog, they have their playlist ready to go. And it's even convenient for people who are just sitting at home listening to music.


Movies, on the otherhand, are mostly 'consumed' one at a time. Sure, people may sit down and have a marathon of a movie trilogy or something, but with very few expecptions, there probably aren't too many people out there watching more than 2 or 3 movies in a row on a regular basis. So, swapping out a disc isn't as inconvenient, and assures long term access.

Also while portable devices have changed things somewhat, I just don't think watching movies "on the go" will ever be the same thing as listening to music that way. You can listen to music while you drive in your own car. Watching a movie would just be dangerous. I can see having portable movies when traveling long distances by plane or train, but for people who don't do that on a regular basis, it's a moot point.

There's just a big difference overall.

I deleted my post before u posted this very long reply for exactly this reason, because I didn't want to get into or start up another thing for everyone squabble over. There are a few things that I want to say about your post, but I truly don't want to get into it, like rob71 pointed out, this is a blu-ray forum. The only thing I will say is that before we all had the option of being able to download 1 song, we had singles and that's what they were for. Yes not every song from an album was given a single release, but almost all the popular songs from an album which had a music video made were released as singles, and 9 times out of 10, they were the songs that people wanted. Though u do make a good point about 1 downloaded song costing approximately $1, where singles did cost a little bit more, but quite often singles were accompanied by bonus songs and remixed versions.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Maybe you didn't read my comment as i was asking about BLU QUALITY (as in better then what is offered by legal streaming and labeled as HD) illegal downloads, not the ones that suck. I personally have never seen them, but i keep hearing about them, maybe they are like sasquatch. I just don't understand how a group of people illegally can produce and distribute better quality over the net then companies and studios with the means and finances to do so.

As for the ramen noodles, your missing out, they still hit the spot time to time.

Maybe my first point mislead you. I was talking about the same thing as you are. My first point was alluding to the guy that said the <10GB files he illegally DL look like BDs (or close enough to BDs) and so we should assume <10GB/movie for HDD space.

I don't go to illigal sites, I don't know if true BD rips are available (i.e. match exactly BD specs) but if that idiot is proof then it can't be taken for granted that even if the original was a BD that what is DL is BD quality. It is much different to DL a <10GB file then, for example, a 40GB file.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

The point that I was trying to make, and it seemed like someone bit my head off is that a friend of mine has Blade Runner on his computer. I asked him about it and found out it was from an HD broadcast apparently. And was downloaded via torrent. It was a digital version of the film, and it was a download thus fitting the description of a "digital download" It was not rubbish... it looked very very good.

Just because something isn't blu ray doesn't mean it can't look great. I've seen HD broadcasts that looked great.

Especially when it comes to Blade Runner, saying the download of that isn't as good as the BD of the same film is like saying a Sirloin Steak isn't as good as a Filet Mignon... they're both delicious!

It is a matter of perspective. Let's say that there is a race, 10 guys are racing, would you say the guy in last place ran great? I would not he lost, how about the guy in 5th he beat 5 other people and only 4 beat him? I would not, how about the guy that came in 2 or 3? I would not. There is only one winner, no matter how close the race and only the winner can be called great everything else by definition is subpar if one cares for quality. Does it need to be BD? No, but if the BD looks better then how can the loser be qualified as great. We called Alexander the great because he was winning the battles and won a hell of a lot of them, no one calls the people that lost to him great because they are the losers.

PS the issue with calling it great is that someone else could just as reasonably call DVD great and someone else VHS and someone else bad reception in the old analogue days

it just depends how low a standard the person has and what goals they want. As kids growing up every time we asked my dad for cable he would say there is no need for it because the image (like the one above) looks great because he did not want to spend the money on cable.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Maybe my first point mislead you. I was talking about the same thing as you are. My first point was alluding to the guy that said the <10GB files he illegally DL look like BDs (or close enough to BDs) and so we should assume <10GB/movie for HDD space.

I don't go to illigal sites, I don't know if true BD rips are available (i.e. match exactly BD specs) but if that idiot is proof then it can't be taken for granted that even if the original was a BD that what is DL is BD quality. It is much different to DL a <10GB file then, for example, a 40GB file.

First off, I don't insult you so please refrain from calling me an idiot. Second, I never said anything about size restrictions, and I never downloaded anything. It was a download that a friend of mine had. My whole point was refuting a claim that digital downloads are crap. I just brought up an example where they weren't just to make someone realize that you can't generalize something like that. I thank you for not calling me an idiot in the future. Thanks.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Let's keep the discussion civil. Name calling and/or offensive rhetoric will not be tolerated.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Really? if you made $94,000 in 2000 and $29,000 in 2009, would you say "I haven't really lost any ground because the world economy also declined"? Because that's the ratio of how much CD has lost. The fact that the music business overall has gotten smaller doesn't help the argument.

You are missing the point. In order for CD to be dead it means that no one is buying CDs. Now if a time comes when people still buy music but not on CD (maybe on BD-A maybe DL). If a time comes when no one is buying music then DL and any other form will be just as dead as CD. And if CDs are sold and have just above half the market for as long as music is sold (in no matter how small quantities) then it will still be king and if it ever gets just below then it is still half the market. To talk about CD being dead as a format would mean that CD is gone but music is still sold to consumers but in a different format then CD.

Is the music industry in ruins and crippled? Yes. But that has to do with mismanaging the industry and not the format called CD.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

[Show spoiler]It is a matter of perspective. Let's say that there is a race, 10 guys are racing, would you say the guy in last place ran great? I would not he lost, how about the guy in 5th he beat 5 other people and only 4 beat him? I would not, how about the guy that came in 2 or 3? I would not. There is only one winner, no matter how close the race and only the winner can be called great everything else by definition is subpar if one cares for quality. Does it need to be BD? No, but if the BD looks better then how can the loser be qualified as great. We called Alexander the great because he was winning the battles and won a hell of a lot of them, no one calls the people that lost to him great because they are the losers.

PS the issue with calling it great is that someone else could just as reasonably call DVD great and someone else VHS and someone else bad reception in the old analogue days

it just depends how low a standard the person has and what goals they want. As kids growing up every time we asked my dad for cable he would say there is no need for it because the image (like the one above) looks great because he did not want to spend the money on cable.

I guess my use of the word great was inappropriate, as that is a matter of opinion. But just because someone comes in 2nd in a race, or that something isn't top of the line quality doesn't mean its crap. And I guess that's all a matter of opinion too I guess, which means I'm probably going to be told I'm wrong no matter what I say so I guess I should just stop voicing my opinion.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

First off, I don't insult you so please refrain from calling me an idiot. Second, I never said anything about size restrictions, and I never downloaded anything. It was a download that a friend of mine had. My whole point was refuting a claim that digital downloads are crap. I just brought up an example where they weren't just to make someone realize that you can't generalize something like that. I thank you for not calling me an idiot in the future. Thanks.

Sorry you took it personaly but if you don't use different accounts on this forum, then I was not talking about you (you should have realized that since it did not come close to the discussion we have had in this thread). Krazeyeyez had taken part in the discussion so I assumed he would know what I was talking about.

I can't remember if it was this thread or an other but the discussion was on HDD sizes needed for movies. MrP said he averages around 40GB/BD movie and that other guy said it is much lower then that because he just DL from illegal sites and they are the BD rips and in some posts he said they look exactly like the BD (which I am wondering when he saw them since why would anyone pirate and buy/rent the same movie) and in other close enough.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

I guess my use of the word great was inappropriate, as that is a matter of opinion. But just because someone comes in 2nd in a race, or that something isn't top of the line quality doesn't mean its crap. And I guess that's all a matter of opinion too I guess, which means I'm probably going to be told I'm wrong no matter what I say so I guess I should just stop voicing my opinion.

again a matter of opinion anything I don't care for I call crap, after all that is what crap is, the stuff you ate but your boddy does not need/care for

on an other side (just to bust your balls a bit) you are in a competition, winner gets 1M$, loser gets nothing. You just lost by the hair on your chin, do you think great I came in second or do you think crap I lost by so little

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Sorry you took it personaly but if you don't use different accounts on this forum, then I was not talking about you (you should have realized that since it did not come close to the discussion we have had in this thread). Krazeyeyez had taken part in the discussion so I assumed he would know what I was talking about.

I can't remember if it was this thread or an other but the discussion was on HDD sizes needed for movies. MrP said he averages around 40GB/BD movie and that other guy said it is much lower then that because he just DL from illegal sites and they are the BD rips and in some posts he said they look exactly like the BD (which I am wondering when he saw them since why would anyone pirate and buy/rent the same movie) and in other close enough.

Oh I'm sorry, the way you stated it, I totally thought you were talking about me, I apologize that I jumped to conclusions. On this point, I completely agree... you CAN'T make something look like a BD without using the storage... Compression = lower bitrates and resolution. PERIOD... So if the movie file of the BD is 40 GB, then the DD is gonna be 40 GB to make it look like a BD... WHICH IS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE and not possible with today's download speeds, unless you wanna wait days to watch your movie.

I was not trying to be argumentative in any way.

[Steedeel]

I stick by my opinion of Bluray meaning quality and downloads meaning crap.
If i am watching a scene with explosions or lots of action i don't wan't to be watching pixel break up and a ugly mess.
bluray enables me to see detail and a nice clean picture no matter what i am watching. downloads do not.
Bluray enables me to pick up detail in dark scenes (at least with a plasma), downloads do not.
Bluray allows me to watch scenes underwater or involving water without dancing pixels and waves that seem to have froze, downloads do not.
Bluray allows me to watch fog or cloudy scenes with very little problem, downloads do not.
Bluray enables me to watch the film the way the director wants, download does not (impossible with so high compression)
Bluray allows superb surround sound, downloads do not

Therefore my original opinion i think is valid.
By the way threefiftyrocket, i noticed you managed to apologise to another member in your above post. It's a shame you couldn't apologise to me as well, after all, you insulted me in your post by calling me a troll and i offered a truce but you can't seem to admit you are wrong. If you are offended by insults then you should not really dish them out!

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

[Show spoiler]I stick by my opinion of Bluray meaning quality and downloads meaning crap.
If i am watching a scene with explosions or lots of action i don't wan't to be watching pixel break up and a ugly mess.
bluray enables me to see detail and a nice clean picture no matter what i am watching. downloads do not.
Bluray enables me to pick up detail in dark scenes (at least with a plasma), downloads do not.
Bluray allows me to watch scenes underwater or involving water without dancing pixels and waves that seem to have froze, downloads do not.
Bluray allows me to watch fog or cloudy scenes with very little problem, downloads do not.
Bluray enables me to watch the film the way the director wants, download does not (impossible with so high compression)
Bluray allows superb surround sound, downloads do not

Therefore my original opinion i think is valid.
By the way threefiftyrocket, i noticed you managed to apologise to another member in your above post. It's a shame you couldn't apologise to me as well, after all, you insulted me in your post by calling me a troll and i offered a truce but you can't seem to admit you are wrong. If you are offended by insults then you should not really dish them out!

I am sorry, I was wrong. You seemed to call me out in your second post in this topic when all I said was that I didn't think you were correct. There was another poster on this board who did the exact same thing and got banned within a week of being on the board, just a few days before you started posting. I assumed you were the same person with a new handle, for that I am sorry and I'm sorry that I called you a troll.