Ready to go Blu-Ray. Anything I should be aware of?

[StephenCampbell]

For video distribution, I think within 5 years blu-ray will go the way of HD video, laser disks, vinyl LPs, only a cult following using specialized players. Even today Blu-Ray sales are dismal in spite of all the marketing. They have to give away players to get any disk sales. Blu-ray could continue to be used for PS game distribution. The market for video and audio for those that appreciate the highest quality may continue, there are still some BETA tape users out there, but the entry price will be high.

There really is no business case for apple to include Blu-Ray support, its a dying technology.

What is happening to our world? No business case?

I have shelves full of DVDs sitting right here, and then they come out with a technology that allows me to exchange these discs for discs that have six times the resolution? And it's dying?

DVD didn't have close to six times the picture quality of VHS.

This is baffling. How could it be dying? I'm going to be watching a lot more films now Simply because of how incredibly gorgeous and crystal clear they look on Blu-Ray! How can nobody care about this?

edit: By the way, if it's dying, that's even more reason for me to upgrade my collection as quickly as possible and purchase any other films that I want on Blu-Ray. I don't care about the world, about the public, the market, the support from Apple... when everything goes to hell and there is no more physical media, I want to own the films I love at the highest quality that was ever made available on physical media.

 

[inaka]

Well, at some point Apple will have to support it. Once they no longer feel threatened by it, and once more and more new releases are coming out on Blu-Ray only, they will support it.

Not happening. They don't have to support it at all, and likely never will.

Yesterday I watched a 1080p rental from iTunes, and today I watched a full movie on Blu-Ray, and the quality difference is quite noticeable. The iTunes download was 4.73GB. The Blu-Ray disc was 45GB.

You rented the exact same bluray you already own to do a test? What bluray did you compare? The 45gb is not the entire film. In fact the movie track alone on most bluray discs ranges from 20-30gb, and that includes multiple audio tracks.

Unless you have a 100" projector, I doubt you'll notice video quality differences between a 1080p iTunes rental and a 1080p BD of the same film. There's just diminishing returns at some point.

 

[StephenCampbell]

Not happening. They don't have to support it at all, and likely never will.


You rented the exact same bluray you already own to do a test? What bluray did you compare? The 45gb is not the entire film. In fact the movie track alone on most bluray discs ranges from 20-30gb, and that includes multiple audio tracks.

Unless you have a 100" projector, I doubt you'll notice video quality differences between a 1080p iTunes rental and a 1080p BD of the same film. There's just diminishing returns at some point.

No, it was not the same film, but the 1080p on iTunes was clearly not what it would be if it were Blu-Ray. I could tell.. the picture just wasn't as crystal as the disc I got.

However, I will do a side by side comparison at some point just to verify. I watched The Duchess on Blu-Ray, and I've also watched parts of The Shawshank Redemption and Babel to test out the system... there's just no way that iTunes could look like this with these films.. I have no doubt that if I got the 1080p version of any of these films from iTunes, the difference would be stark. It just can't be done in 4GB.

edit: In fact, I'll rent the 1080p Shawshank from iTunes right now. I'm curious. I actually watched the HD Shawshank on my 23" screen not too long ago.. and I don't remember being particularly blown away by the picture quality. When I pulled up the Blu-Ray on the 30" screen, that was mind blowing. But anyways.. I've got the 1080p iTunes version downloading again, we'll see.....

 

[CaptainChunk]

Then we must plant our feet firm in the ground and withstand the coming storm of degradation, decline, ignorance and idiocy, and let our very existences function as an act of defiance against irrationality and impulse-based psychology.

Somehow, I don't think the vocal minority of people who really give a damn about quality will sway Apple's stance on the Blu-ray matter. They earn way too much money on iTunes to care.


Hypothetically, if Apple were to were begin shipping systems with BD drives, they would:

A. Need to support Blu-ray's encryption technology (AACS) at the kernel level in Mac OS. (unlikely, considering OS X is built around an open-source kernel, like goMac has already pointed out)

and...

B. Need to update the stock DVD Player app to support commercial BD playback and by extension, pay AACS licensing fees to Sony for every shipping system (this was Jobs' "big bag of hurt" beef with Blu-ray)

Looking from Apple's point of view, why would they devote resources to a major OS overhaul and pay licensing fees to support a format that makes them no money and potentially sways consumers away from paid iTunes movie downloads? That's the business stance Apple decided to take.


On another note...

The HD optical disc world would be a MUCH better place for manufacturers and consumers alike, if HD-DVD was marketed and deployed better, but it wasn't. The HD-DVD standard was a lot more open than Blu-ray is and in fact, Apple even supported HD-DVD authoring in DVD Studio Pro.

But Sony simply had too big of an advantage in content distribution channels (their SPE arm owns Columbia and Tri-Star) and they enjoyed a massive deployment of Blu-ray playback devices in every PS3 sold. It can be argued that the PS3 singlehandedly made Sony's success very easy, because even if a consumer bought the console solely for its primary purpose (playing games), they also got a particularly good Blu-ray player as an added bonus.

HD-DVD on the other hand, saw set top players manufactured only by Toshiba and an external add-on player almost nobody bought for the XB360.

 

[CaptainChunk]

Unless you have a 100" projector, I doubt you'll notice video quality differences between a 1080p iTunes rental and a 1080p BD of the same film. There's just diminishing returns at some point.

To be fair, the differences are actually easier to spot than you might believe, even on smaller screens and monitors. Blu-ray movies resolve a lot more detail that the high level of compression in iTunes 1080p movies throws away. Blu-ray is far superior at handling dark gradients and shadows, where an iTunes movie will display very noticeable compression artifacts.

So there is a difference, but going back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread, there are simply not enough people out there anymore that care enough. To most consumers, HD is HD, and their understanding of video quality doesn't go very far past screen resolution. So to most people, 1080 iTunes video is "good enough" and they can stream it to their Apple TV and other iOS devices (yay, convenience!).

 

[goMac]

For reference, I watch both Bluray and iTunes 1080p on my 55" tv, and I can't visually tell the difference. I actually prefer the iTunes content for the convenience.

The 5.1 audio on Bluray is slightly better, but for content that's mostly mastered in stereo (like tv shows) that's a non issue. Most of the time the only time I notice that sort of thing is the few points in a film that they pull out some audio trick they want to show off.

1080p on iTunes simply looks amazingly sharp.

 

[GermanyChris]

For video distribution, I think within 5 years blu-ray will go the way of HD video, laser disks, vinyl LPs, only a cult following using specialized players. Even today Blu-Ray sales are dismal in spite of all the marketing. They have to give away players to get any disk sales. Blu-ray could continue to be used for PS game distribution. The market for video and audio for those that appreciate the highest quality may continue, there are still some BETA tape users out there, but the entry price will be high.

There really is no business case for apple to include Blu-Ray support, its a dying technology.

I think Blu Ray is the metal tape of movies, but yes my Mac also has a Blu Ray drive.

 

[StephenCampbell]

For reference, I watch both Bluray and iTunes 1080p on my 55" tv, and I can't visually tell the difference. I actually prefer the iTunes content for the convenience.

The 5.1 audio on Bluray is slightly better, but for content that's mostly mastered in stereo (like tv shows) that's a non issue. Most of the time the only time I notice that sort of thing is the few points in a film that they pull out some audio trick they want to show off.

1080p on iTunes simply looks amazingly sharp.

Well, some people have a keener eye than others apparently.

 

[inaka]

No, it was not the same film, but the 1080p on iTunes was clearly not what it would be if it were Blu-Ray. I could tell.. the picture just wasn't as crystal as the disc I got.

You can say that to yourself, and even believe it, but it's not true. You're mixing up two very different things. Bluray is a format, it's not a transfer. Just because a film comes out on bluray does not mean its going to be "crystal clear". That lies in the hands of the people in charge of the film transfer process.

If you take a modern movie with special effects, etc like let's, say Iron Man, it's going to look "crystal clear" even in an 1080p iTunes rental because the originals and transfer itself are so pristine.

If you take an older movie like, let's say, Back to the Future, and watch that on bluray, it's not going to be "crystal clear" at all because the film transfer and restoration of the original film elements isn't crystal clear from the start. It may never look "crystal clear" because the original elements are poor compared to modern films, etc.

So again, a film put on bluray doesn't mean it's automatically crystal clear.

However, I will do a side by side comparison at some point just to verify. I watched The Duchess on Blu-Ray, and I've also watched parts of The Shawshank Redemption and Babel to test out the system... there's just no way that iTunes could look like this with these films.. I have no doubt that if I got the 1080p version of any of these films from iTunes, the difference would be stark. It just can't be done in 4GB.

edit: In fact, I'll rent the 1080p Shawshank from iTunes right now. I'm curious. I actually watched the HD Shawshank on my 23" screen not too long ago.. and I don't remember being particularly blown away by the picture quality. When I pulled up the Blu-Ray on the 30" screen, that was mind blowing. But anyways.. I've got the 1080p iTunes version downloading again, we'll see.....

If you have only a 23" display, then you need to be sitting like 18" or closer to even see the benefits of 1080p vs. 1080i in the first place. On a 30" display? You have to sit within 5 feet of the display. This applies, blu ray or not. The human eye can't even see the difference.

Again, using a reference film like the transfer for Shawshank Redemption on a 23" or 30" display is in no way reference material by any means. I'm happy that you enjoy the picture quality of bluray. It's nice. But Shawshank on BD mind blowing? Ok. Its pretty clear that you've sold yourself on the idea that a bluray file with a much larger file size must automatically blow away an iTunes rental no matter what since it's a much bigger file size. But at some point you hit diminishing returns, and the sheer file size itself isn't a reason that it's clearer any more so than a film being released on bluray doesn't automatically make it look amazing.

----------

So there is a difference, but going back to what I was talking about earlier in this thread, there are simply not enough people out there anymore that care enough. To most consumers, HD is HD, and their understanding of video quality doesn't go very far past screen resolution. So to most people, 1080 iTunes video is "good enough" and they can stream it to their Apple TV and other iOS devices (yay, convenience!).

I agree, and I am one of those people who care. But when I read people talking about how amazing bluray looks over a 1080p rental, and then they're viewing the Shawshank Redemption on a 23" display, it just seems kind of silly and part of the other side of the spectrum. Just like you said, I agree there are people that see heavily compressed HD on cable TV and don't care because it's HD. (Yay, HD!)

But then on the other side of the spectrum you have people that ignore the film transfer process, the original source material itself, even intentional film grain, but then say, wow cool, this bluray is 40GB (Yay! big file must mean its amazing quality!)

 

[StephenCampbell]

You can say that to yourself, and even believe it, but it's not true. You're mixing up two very different things. Bluray is a format, it's not a transfer. Just because a film comes out on bluray does not mean its going to be "crystal clear". That lies in the hands of the people in charge of the film transfer process.

If you take a modern movie with special effects, etc like let's, say Iron Man, it's going to look "crystal clear" even in an 1080p iTunes rental because the originals and transfer itself are so pristine.

If you take an older movie like, let's say, Back to the Future, and watch that on bluray, it's not going to be "crystal clear" at all because the film transfer and restoration of the original film elements isn't crystal clear from the start. It may never look "crystal clear" because the original elements are poor compared to modern films, etc.

So again, a film put on bluray doesn't mean it's automatically crystal clear.



If you have only a 23" display, then you need to be sitting like 18" or closer to even see the benefits of 1080p vs. 1080i in the first place. On a 30" display? You have to sit within 5 feet of the display. This applies, blu ray or not. The human eye can't even see the difference.

Again, using a reference film like the transfer for Shawshank Redemption on a 23" or 30" display is in no way reference material by any means. I'm happy that you enjoy the picture quality of bluray. It's nice. But Shawshank on BD mind blowing? Ok. Its pretty clear that you've sold yourself on the idea that a bluray file with a much larger file size must automatically blow away an iTunes rental no matter what since it's a much bigger file size. But at some point you hit diminishing returns, and the sheer file size itself isn't a reason that it's clearer any more so than a film being released on bluray doesn't automatically make it look amazing.

----------


I agree, and I am one of those people who care. But when I read people talking about how amazing bluray looks over a 1080p rental, and then they're viewing the Shawshank Redemption on a 23" display, it just seems kind of silly and part of the other side of the spectrum. Just like you said, I agree there are people that see heavily compressed HD on cable TV and don't care because it's HD. (Yay, HD!)

But then on the other side of the spectrum you have people that ignore the film transfer process, the original source material itself, even intentional film grain, but then say, wow cool, this bluray is 40GB (Yay! big file must mean its amazing quality!)

I know all about film source, intentional grain, etc. I don't do what you're talking about at all.

As soon as this rental of Shawshank is downloaded (I had to leave and put the computer to sleep most of the day, and just came back), I will compare them and give my final word on the quality difference. Based on the way the Blu-Ray looks, I highly doubt that the iTunes will look as good, but I will be unbiased in my judgment, because I still prefer the fact that the disc is physical either way.

 

[inaka]

I know all about film source, intentional grain, etc. I don't do what you're talking about at all.

As soon as this rental of Shawshank is downloaded (I had to leave and put the computer to sleep most of the day, and just came back), I will compare them and give my final word on the quality difference. Based on the way the Blu-Ray looks, I highly doubt that the iTunes will look as good, but I will be unbiased in my judgment, because I still prefer the fact that the disc is physical either way.

On a 23" display, it's virtually pointless.

Again, this isn't a feather in your cap to think you have a keen eye spotting these things, it's literally a limitation of the human eye itself to even distinguish the difference between 1080i and 1080p at realistic distances with a display that small, etc.

You may want to check out viewing distance in relation to resolution, as I'm not making this stuff up:

 

[StephenCampbell]

On a 23" display, it's virtually pointless.

Again, this isn't a feather in your cap to think you have a keen eye spotting these things, it's literally a limitation of the human eye itself to even distinguish the difference between 1080i and 1080p at realistic distances with a display that small, etc.

You may want to check out viewing distance in relation to resolution, as I'm not making this stuff up:

Image

Okay, wonderful. I believe it. But I sit in front of a 30" ACD, at a distance of about 3 feet, so yes, I can see the difference.

I just compared the iTunes vs. Blu-Ray Shawshank Redemptions, and in spite of my previous convictions I found myself surprised at the drastic difference in picture quality. Blu-Ray looks complete, clear, "full," as if the film itself is being projected. iTunes is literally slightly blurry in comparison... the skin on peoples faces isn't as clearly defined, you see compression artifacts everywhere and a general compression blur over Everything.

It was literally unbelievable... way larger a difference than even I had expected.

I have the two versions paused at the same spot on my screen side by side... even shrunk to below native size, I'm literally agape at the difference, and at the fact that Apple is trying (and succeeding) to sell this compressed hack pseudo-HD version as a legitimate alternative to Blu-Ray.

The difference between these two, even just purely in terms of the most basic clarity, is almost like that of DVD to Blu-Ray.

 

[CaptainChunk]

What is happening to our world? No business case?

I have shelves full of DVDs sitting right here, and then they come out with a technology that allows me to exchange these discs for discs that have six times the resolution? And it's dying?

DVD didn't have close to six times the picture quality of VHS.

BD will never enjoy the same level success DVD did and it comes down to a few things:

1. Distribution. Because of AACS licensing, commercial BDs cost almost three times as much to manufacture as DVDs do. That's pretty significant and it's a big reason why new release titles often cost $25 or more.

2. Life was hell for early adopters (I was one of them). The first- and second-generation set top players were clunky, slow pieces of garbage that literally took 5 minutes to load certain discs and they were way too expensive. The PS3 was the only truly good BD player for at least the first two years.

3. Bogus restrictions. Starting in 2011, all shipping players were required to completely disable HD output of any kind over analog video (HDMI only!), forcing anyone with an older HDTV with only analog inputs to buy a new one.

4. The perceived image quality of DVD over VHS was much more significant to consumers than BD over DVD in general. Also, don't forget that over 30% of US households haven't even adopted HDTVs yet. And again, consumers are drifting more towards the convenience that streaming media provides. No more storing large libraries of discs, no more running to a kiosk or rental store to rent a movie - it can all be done from the couch.

I'm predicting that BD will be the last optical video format we'll see, much like CDs are the dead-end for music distribution. Even the audiophile labels are embracing high-resolution file distribution.

I agree, and I am one of those people who care. But when I read people talking about how amazing bluray looks over a 1080p rental, and then they're viewing the Shawshank Redemption on a 23" display, it just seems kind of silly and part of the other side of the spectrum. Just like you said, I agree there are people that see heavily compressed HD on cable TV and don't care because it's HD. (Yay, HD!)

But then on the other side of the spectrum you have people that ignore the film transfer process, the original source material itself, even intentional film grain, but then say, wow cool, this bluray is 40GB (Yay! big file must mean its amazing quality!)

I agree. I'm one of those people who care, too, but I also understand that certain movies transferred to BD aren't going to be as mind blowing as others. The source material and transfer process do matter, like you said. I've bought older movies (like ones made in the 70s and 80s) on BD in the past only to find that they really didn't look much better than the DVD versions. Now I don't even buy BDs anymore; I just rent them from Redbox.

Regarding digital TV, I've found that cable is the lesser offender when it comes to compression. I've observed that most HD channels on my local operator use streams that are in the neighborhood of 15-18Mbps, whereas DirecTV and Dish often stream at under 10Mbps due to their limited bandwidth. But how the video really looks in the end is a wash. Some networks do a better job with their compression than others.

 

[StephenCampbell]

I seriously don't want to hear another word about the quality not being that different.

I've just seen it with my own eyes, and it's beyond anything I could have imagined. Apple's 1080p is a joke! There is a slight blur over the whole image, which completely erases the fine details and pores of the skin on the actors. Blu-Ray looks as close to real life as anything I've ever seen.

You're likely right that BD will be the last physical medium, and that is because there isn't much to improve from here, unless we're talking about other dimensions or holographic films.

 

[GermanyChris]

I seriously don't want to hear another word about the quality not being that different.

I've just seen it with my own eyes, and it's beyond anything I could have imagined. Apple's 1080p is a joke! There is a slight blur over the whole image, which completely erases the fine details and pores of the skin on the actors. Blu-Ray looks as close to real life as anything I've ever seen.

You're likely right that BD will be the last physical medium, and that is because there isn't much to improve from here, unless we're talking about other dimensions or holographic films.

So we're just going to accept your word of course. How silly of people to argue with you. Let me be the first to proffer my sincerest apologizes to the ubermensch.

 

[StephenCampbell]

So we're just going to accept your word of course. How silly of people to argue with you. Let me be the first to proffer my sincerest apologizes to the ubermensch.

Look. I had them side by side on my screen. One looked like SD, the other looked like HD.

I know there are many different types of setups one can have, and sitting 10 feet away from a 40" TV screen, there would be no difference. But on a 2500x1600 30" ACD, from three feet away, the difference is drastic. Drastic.

I am not an ubermensch. I was simply trying to steer the conversation back from the bogus question of whether there is a difference (which should not be a discussion given the reality), to What the difference means to different people and if it is worth caring about.

 

[GermanyChris]

Look. I had them side by side on my screen. One looked like SD, the other looked like HD.

I know there are many different types of setups one can have, and sitting 10 feet away from a 40" TV screen, there would be no difference. But on a 2500x1600 30" ACD, from three feet away, the difference is drastic. Drastic.

I am not an ubermensch. I was simply trying to steer the conversation back from the bogus question of whether there is a difference (which should not be a discussion given the reality), to What the difference means to different people and if it is worth caring about.

They are drastic to you, as other have stated they don't see a difference. I literally have to pause a movie at the same place to see a difference between the 3 formats. I have on Blu Ray, DVD, and now iTunes HD. I have a matching pair of Samsung B2430H's mounted on a desktop VESA mount I sit 22" from where the monitors meet. The Blu Ray is indistinguishable from the iTunes HD, and the difference between DVD and iTunes is only noticeable when I pause on the same frame. What is better on Blu Ray is the sound even on my 2.1 computer speakers. I don't own a TV so I can't make the caparison between the formats on a TV.

Implying that we're fools because we don't see what you see is a little much everyone's vision is different just like their ears.

 

[StephenCampbell]

They are drastic to you, as other have stated they don't see a difference. I literally have to pause a movie at the same place to see a difference between the 3 formats. I have on Blu Ray, DVD, and now iTunes HD. I have a matching pair of Samsung B2430H's mounted on a desktop VESA mount I sit 22" from where the monitors meet. The Blu Ray is indistinguishable from the iTunes HD, and the difference between DVD and iTunes is only noticeable when I pause on the same frame. What is better on Blu Ray is the sound even on my 2.1 computer speakers. I don't own a TV so I can't make the caparison between the formats on a TV.

Implying that we're fools because we don't see what you see is a little much everyone's vision is different just like their ears.

Well, until you see them side by side on a 30" ACD, I can't make any comment on your observations. I don't know what your Samsung screens might be doing to the images.

Edit: I wonder if someone else who watches Blu-Ray on their Mac and has a 30" ACD could back me up here? Drastic is the only fitting word to describe the difference. I would actually say that iTunes HD is closer to DVD quality than it is to Blu-Ray.. or at least right in the middle.

 

[inaka]

Okay, wonderful. I believe it. But I sit in front of a 30" ACD, at a distance of about 3 feet, so yes, I can see the difference.

Actually, you can't. No one can. Again, we're talking the difference between 1080i vs 1080p at that distance using the very same source material. The fact that you keep insisting that you can tell the difference, when you aren't even deciphering the chart correctly is very telling. Any difference in pic quality that you see has nothing to do with what I'm explaining with the chart. Oh well.

The difference between these two, even just purely in terms of the most basic clarity, is almost like that of DVD to Blu-Ray.

And with this I'm out. Can't tell if you're trolling or what, but comparing 1080p bluray to a 1080p iTunes rental of the same film, and saying its almost like the pic quality difference of DVD to bluray is just absurd.

Enjoy your movies.

 

[StephenCampbell]

Actually, you can't. No one can. Again, we're talking the difference between 1080i vs 1080p at that distance using the very same source material. The fact that you keep insisting that you can tell the difference, when you aren't even deciphering the chart correctly is very telling. Any difference in pic quality that you see has nothing to do with what I'm explaining with the chart. Oh well.


And with this I'm out. Can't tell if you're trolling or what, but comparing 1080p bluray to a 1080p iTunes rental of the same film, and saying its almost like the pic quality difference of DVD to bluray is just absurd.

Enjoy your movies.

Oh my god! This has gotten completely out of hand.

I must retire from this thread until someone else with a Blu-Ray drive and a 30" ACD confirms my observations.

The difference IS drastic!

How can you tell me that I can't see a difference when I'm looking at them right here and one is blurry relative to the other one!???

Edit: Also, your chart shows the full benefit of 1080p being shown at just about 3 feet away for a 30" screen.

But it doesn't matter. What matters is that we're sitting by a tree, and you're trying to have a discussion about whether the tree is actually there or not. Even if you could prove on paper that it's physically impossible for it to be there, you'd still get hurt if I whacked your head against it.

 

[inaka]

Your posts are so flawed with misinformation that it's pointless to correct you because you only see what you want to see. Literally.

If you love blu-ray, enjoy it as the studios love people re-bying the same movies over and over in various formats. But your analysis is completely ridiculous when comparing a 1080p bluray source and a 1080p iTunes of the same film transfer. When you say a film like The Shawshank Redemption is "jaw dropping" and "Blu-Ray looks as close to real life as anything I've ever seen." well the film itself isn't HD video, it's shot on film! The source material doesn't even look like real life. It's a period film and given grain and cinematography to set a mood. This isn't HD of a football game that might make it look like you're looking through a window. So saying "One looked like SD, the other looked like HD" just kind of makes me think you're trolling or maybe even rented the SD version on iTunes. Oops. Even if you didn't, I have the blu-ray of Shawshank and it's anything but "real life." LOL

 

[StephenCampbell]

Your posts are so flawed with misinformation that it's pointless to correct you because you only see what you want to see. Literally.

If you love blu-ray, enjoy it as the studios love people re-bying the same movies over and over in various formats. But your analysis is completely ridiculous when comparing a 1080p bluray source and a 1080p iTunes of the same film transfer. When you say a film like The Shawshank Redemption is "jaw dropping" and "Blu-Ray looks as close to real life as anything I've ever seen." well the film itself isn't HD video, it's shot on film! The source material doesn't even look like real life. It's a period film and given grain and cinematography to set a mood. This isn't HD of a football game that might make it look like you're looking through a window. So saying "One looked like SD, the other looked like HD" just kind of makes me think you're trolling or maybe even rented the SD version on iTunes. Oops. Even if you didn't, I have the blu-ray of Shawshank and it's anything but "real life." LOL

*sigh*.......

Of COURSE it looks the way the film was meant to look. It looks like a film.. it has film grain.

This is an issue of Picture Clarity.... with "Picture" being whatever was shot on film.

It doesn't matter what I'm saying. I'm not trying to formulate proof for why one is clearer than the other. I'm telling you that one is clearer than the other. If I'm terrible at talking about this that has no effect on the fact that there is a large difference in the picture quality between these two that is way beyond what a placebo effect could conjure.

I think you're the one who is starting to troll... or perhaps you're just having fun getting me riled up.

I will assume that and ignore your posts from now on.

 

[ActionableMango]

I am a big Blu-ray fan but I can see the hard truth.

Blu-ray will die some day as all formats do. Streaming will win the day because convenience and cost combined with adequate quality are more important to the vast majority of customers than having the greatest possible quality.

Apple doesn't have to support commercial Blu-ray playback. Commercial Blu-rays are meant for the home theater. The vast majority of people don't get a ultra-high resolution disc with fantastic multichannel HD audio and then watch the movie at their computer desk with their Logitech stereo computer speakers.

 

[GermanyChris]

I am a big Blu-ray fan but I can see the hard truth.

Blu-ray will die some day as all formats do. Streaming will win the day because convenience and cost combined with adequate quality are more important to the vast majority of customers than having the greatest possible quality.

Apple doesn't have to support commercial Blu-ray playback. Commercial Blu-rays are meant for the home theater. The vast majority of people don't get a ultra-high resolution disc with fantastic multichannel HD audio and then watch the movie at their computer desk with their Logitech stereo computer speakers.

You just ruined my life I'm not normal..

 

[StephenCampbell]

Oh I know. I understand perfectly the place Blu-Ray has in the market, and the inevitability of its replacement with streaming and online options.

For me the issue is quite simple. I love good films, and I own many of them on DVD, and the fact that there are disc versions of them available now with far superior picture and sound quality to what I currently have, makes it a no brainer to upgrade.

Blu-Rays look mind blowing on my 30" screen, and my Logitech Z-2300 speakers do a fine job for stereo speakers (I don't yet live in a place where I can realistically mount a 5.1 or 7.1 set around me), so whether I'm normal or not, this gives me a really wonderful film viewing experience, and I'm glad that Blu-Ray discs exist of all these films that I love.