how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to DeathK
Re: NOPE I disk-based content will be around for awhile. The primary reason is picture quality. For digital content delivered by cable, satellite, broadcast, streaming IP, etc., the content distributor has their hand on the (figurative) knob of the encoder. Business conditions drive them reduce the cost of delivery as much as possible by turning the knob on the compressor as high as the "average" customer will tolerate. As a result, most "digital video" content looks awful on anything but a tiny screen (e.g., just compare a typical digital cable or DBS satellite channel to the C-Band original, or a local broadcast station on one of these systems, compared to what you can receive with a good rooftop antenna in a City Grade reception area). Providers are even doing that now with HDTV: most Over The Air broadcasters take part of the 19 Mbps and use it for a second (or even third) channel, and cable and DBS channels are being down-rez'd to 1440 or even 1280 lines of horizontal resolution. Even for streaming content, the more it's compressed, the less server resources and bandwidth resources it consumes.
This isn't the case with DVD's. If it fits on a disk, there is no cost incentive to compress it further. Content creators, who have a key interest in maintaining the picture quality as high as possible (if even only for their own satisfaction), are the ones that control the compression level. Plus, they influenced the specification of the physical medium, so they could ensure it had sufficient capacity to deliver the quality they sought to deliver. This is analogous to the situation in theaters; e.g., the first-generation film prints shown in West Los Angeles, where the film industry goes to the movies, look far better than the prints at the average suburban multiplex in most of the country. | |
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | I basically agree with you all, but I think there's a better way to sum up the HD-DVD and Blu Ray prospects: cost-benefit ratio.
The quality improvement over DVD really is impressive when you look at a well-mastered, true-HD source (not just upscaled DVD resolution) on a true HD monitor (not just widescreen).
But there are two other factors: DVD is "good enough" for many people even though true HD is dazzling; and the cost factor.
Most people will upgrade to better displays, either in the next few years or at least when their old TVs die. But this is not the only cost factor. It will take a while for player prices to come down; and for those who collect disks instead of renting they're going to be very resistant to replacing collections.
So migrations will take years - but the hardware makers don't have that long with HD-DVD or Blu Ray. Both are going to fail unless the format war gets decided, and that's not going to happen until people start buying. Thus, I am very skeptical about either HD-DVD or Blu Ray succeeding. | |
 RCaugh
join:2001-03-03
San Francisco, CA | reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:Content creators, who have a key interest in maintaining the picture quality as high as possible (if even only for their own satisfaction), are the ones that control the compression level. Netflix rules. | |
|
