"Blu-ray Disc" vs. "HD DVD": Neither Is Winning

[Tjalfe]

Actually, the numbers strongly suggest Apple iTunes is beating both Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/16111/

On Tuesday, January 15, Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced that Apple had sold 7 million movies to date online via iTunes Store.

Therefore, we know:
• HD DVD has sold 2.5 million movies since April 2006 (20 months)
• Blu-ray has sold 6 million movies since June 2006, (18 months)
• Apple has sold 7 million movies since September 2006 (15 months)

Apple's iTunes Store has sold nearly three times more movies — in "near-DVD quality" 640x480 resolution and U.S.-only, no less — than HD DVD titles in 5 fewer months and more movies than Blu-ray titles in 2 fewer months - all without the support of many major Hollywood studios (all of whom are, of course, now onboard with Apple's new iTunes movie rentals, which will soon begin offering titles in High Definition (720p) with 5.1 Dolby Digital surround sound - only via Apple TV, for now).



Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

you should be comparing apples itunes with regular DVD sales. Blu Ray should be compared with Apple HD sales.. do you have those numbers?
also, you are comparing Sales with Rentals, are you not?

[Hulk]

Jerry your enthusiasm is admirable

While the Apple TV is ok for the average person that does not care about quality. 1080P will blow the doors out of 720p, I've seen both and know that you simple cannot compare the two.
Blu-Ray is not dead, you are forgetting some very important aspects why people will still buy Blu-ray media...

1-Blu-Ray supports 1080P and it's AMAZING! (I don't think you have acutally seen it otherwise you will not be knocking it down)

2-The studios that support Blu-Ray may be exlusively offering some block buster movie hits on blu-ray and not available for download.

3-people want to collect media like myself, I have over 150 DVD movie that I have bought from stores, I will not download and burn on DVD, because I don't get the extras including the box.
4-editors and production studios will have no choice but to burn HD content on Blu-ray, what are you going to say to customers, go and download the content from my server? hehe!

The battle between HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray is now over, this will encourage the consumer like myself to stock up on the best looking movies (eye candy) hits on Blu-ray and enjoy on 1080p TV's.


Cheers,
Elie

Elie,

You are absolutely correct! And so has everyone else that has been arguing against Jerry in this thread. I've been trying to hold back and protect him from the harsh truth of how wrong he is but at this point I think it better to just let him know the truth.

Yes, unless you have some very old eyes 1080p with good content and a good monitor is MUCH better than 720p. My display with BRs is astounding. Simply eye-popping.

Broadcast 720p is pretty good but good 1080p Blu-Rays and HD-DVDs blow it away in the same way 480p is blowin away by 720p.

Hmm. Let's see 720-480=240
1080-720=360

Well what do you know?! The jump from 720p to 1080p is actually larger than from 480p to 720p! Did you read that Jerry? You're "good enough" 720p is closer in resolution to SD than it is to 1080p. Ha Ha Ha!!!

The dumbed down, low resolution, format limited, weak cpu'ed, Apple TV might be fine for some people but if you are looking for the best video quality then you'll want the real thing and today that's 1080p. All of the newest releases are on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD and more and more older titles are being released every week.

I am enjoying it now. We're talking about the best consumer format right? Well right now that's 1080p and HD optical media!!!

Sorry Jerry that'a a fact Jack! Hey I rhymed too! Ha Ha!

Bwaahaaaahaaa!!! (evil laugh)

[Brian Ellis]

• HD DVD has sold 2.5 million movies since April 2006 (20 months)
• Blu-ray has sold 6 million movies since June 2006, (18 months)
• Apple has sold 7 million movies since September 2006 (15 months)

Apple's iTunes Store has sold nearly three times more movies — in "near-DVD quality" 640x480 resolution and U.S.-only, no less

Condemned from your own mouth!!! 640 x 480: not even SD. Dammit, it would not surprise me if this little country of 750,000 persons has viewed 7 million SD movies in 15 months, if you count both sales and rentals, at 720x576. In my village of 1500 inhabitants there are 2 DVD rental shops and they both appear to be booming. There is another one in the next village of about equal size. Within a 25 km radius, there must be at least 100 and several shops selling them. Optical media are well alive and kicking, even if HD is morose.

How dare you compare 640x480 with HD-DVD and BR, anyway? Sour apples and ripe mangoes.

You should have now condemned this thread to death from your own confession.

[Jerry Jones]

Elie,

1080p is not ready for primetime; it's a marketing ploy at this point in history.

The United States broadcast standard is ATSC.

Take a close look at the numbers in this table:

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

It is critical to note that there is no 1080p @ 60 frames per second for the United States broadcasting system.

The United States broadcast system currently supports 1080p at a mere 30 and 24 frames per second.

The Apple TV *does* support 1080p output.

But 1080p movies are so huge -- in terms of file size -- that they make downloading via current broadband impractical.

In addition, the 1080p movies that are available are limited to 24 frames per second or 30 frames per second.

There has been virtually no production to date that has utilized 1080p at 60 frames per second so why would I want to watch 1080p at 24 frames or 30 frames per second when I can watch 720p at a full 60 frames per second to capture very nice, smooth motion?

So, Elie, I would submit that you also suffer from "pixel-envy."

Wake up; you're chasing a ghost.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

1080P will blow the doors out of 720p

[Jerry Jones]

Well, the 640 x 480 Apple TV shows that I'm watching are just as clear and nice as movies on my standard definition DVD-video discs.

Apple uses the term "near DVD-quality" just to be on the safe side in terms of consumer expectations, but my Apple TV downloads look just as good as DVDs.

Apple uses the finest encoders available.

This is why Apple's "near DVD quality" movies have outsold high definition optical disc movies.

The numbers don't lie.

I have to tell you, Brian, this Apple TV is the next "big thing."

I'm being sincere here.

At least give it some consideration.

It's really a remarkable device.

For just $229 or less (on Amazon), you can buy one.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-9129445-5675216?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=apple+tv&x=0&y=0

I've had mine for just a couple of days and it has already performed well beyond my expectations.

There's no way I'm going to spend huge dollars on Blu-ray -- disc player, receiver, cables, optical discs and all of the other baggage -- when I can get top quality 720p high definition movies via the clean, simple Apple TV for far less money and much greater flexibility and features that go well beyond just watching movies.

I am streaming the the most wonderful podcasts from all over the globe to my television using Apple TV. Wireless streaming is truly the ultimate in convenience and simplicity.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

Condemned from your own mouth!!! 640 x 480: not even SD.

[Jerry Jones]

Apple TV: http://www.apple.com/appletv/

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

I care about quality and I prefer the Apple TV, which does support 1080p output.

And the reviewers are saying Apple TV competes favorably to Blu-ray:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/

Apple TV 2.0 vs. Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable: The Comparison

We used a very recent 40” Sony Bravia XBR4 television with 1080p and 120Hz support for our testing, and set all of our HDMI-connected playback devices to display at their best possible resolutions: the Blu-Ray Disc player was a PlayStation 3 console at 1080p, the Apple TV was set to its new 1080p mode, the Scientific Atlanta cable box was set to its maximum of 1080i, and the DVD player was the same PlayStation 3 at 1080p, set on normal upscaling mode. Four test screens were picked as representative of the film’s content, and a Nikon camera was used to shoot each paused screen at 1/80 of a second.

What We Saw

While the Blu-Ray version was the clear winner of the bunch, we were surprised by how well the Apple TV fared in comparison to the other formats we tested.

What impressed us about the Apple TV rental was that the video, despite needing to be sent over the Internet rather than residing comfortably on a DVD or Blu-Ray Disc, exhibited little in the way of motion blur or compression artifacts—it looked as good as could be expected from 720p, which is to say comfortably better than DVD quality, but shy of the best a Blu-Ray Disc can offer on a top TV. The Apple TV video also contained a Dolby Digital 5.1 surround audio track, which the HD cable version did not, and its sound didn’t suffer from obvious compression issues like the cable version did.

It’s also worth noting that the Blu-Ray Disc’s biggest video and audio advantages are real, but will be lost on many HDTV users. Since the majority of HDTVs sold before 2007 were not capable of displaying true 1080p output—most were capped at 720p or 1080i—the superior video quality of the Blu-Ray versions of movies won’t be noticeable on such sets, and the difference between the Apple TV and Blu-Ray versions will be less noticeable. If you’re using a TV without the ability to display 1080p video—especially if you don’t have a receiver capable of decoding the Blu-Ray Disc’s DTS-HD signal—an Apple TV rental will be an almost complete substitute for renting the Blu-Ray.

"HD DVD" and "Blu-ray Disc?"

Dead as DISC-o.



APPLE TV: http://www.apple.com/appletv/

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

While the Apple TV is ok for the average person that does not care about quality. 1080P will blow the doors out of 720p

[Jerry Jones]

For those considering an Apple TV, please know that I'm using a low-cost Mac mini, which has 802.11g and not the faster, newer 802.11n.

I also have an Apple Airport Extreme Base Station for wireless networking:

http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/

Even with my slower 802.11g speeds, I'm able to stream standard definition video content -- without a glitch -- to my television!

So, the *only reason* that I can see to ever use the hard disk on the Apple TV is to watch high definition video rentals and even high definition videos will stream wirelessly from your computer if your wireless network is a pure 802.11n network.

BUT... even with the slower 802.11g wireless network, there's no reason to use the hard disk on the Apple TV for any purpose (other than 720p movie rentals) because you can stream any other content from any hard disk in your house... podcasts... YouTube... standard definition videos... music... photos... etc.

This device is going to change the way the world consumes information and motion picture entertainment. Pure and simple.

It's an amazing device.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Just did another interesting experiment.

The APPLE TV can display home video/audio streams originating from your computer's hard disk.

Which standard definition consumer camcorders work best?

Many... but I've just completed a very successful test with video/audio recorded by the standard definition SANYO VPC-CG6:

http://www.sanyo-dsc.com/english/products/vpc_cg6/index.html

When set to record at highest possible quality, the SANYO VPC-CG6 records MPEG-4 with an .MP4 extension to 640 x 480 resolution, 29.97 frames per second, at 3Mbps. Stereo audio is sampled at 48Khz at 125Kbps.

I imported this video into Apple iTunes on my computer.

I then streamed it -- live -- to my Apple TV for display on my TV and it played perfectly over my 802.11g wireless network.

For people who only want standard definition, this is amazing.

Because all of your family video can be stored on a hard disk of your computer and streamed to your TV -- wirelessly.

In addition, the Sanyo camcorders record to memory cards.

And you can do editing in the camera itself.

If you have a faster 802.11n wireless network, you can stream high definition camcorder video.

The cool thing is the Apple software.

The Apple TV's software interface is superb.

It's gives you a nice-looking menu -- automatically -- without the work of having to go into a DVD authoring program.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

The Apple TV automatically detects the type of connection you make.

For example, when I connect -- using analog component cables -- an old Toshiba 26DF6 interlaced widescreen standard definition tube TV...

http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/televisions/product.asp?model=26df56

...to the Apple TV, the Apple TV's menu gives me the option to select 480i (interlaced).

I even made connection -- using analog component cables -- with a square (4:3) interlaced Insignia model NS-27RTV and it worked just as well.

When I connect a flat panel LCD using an HDMI cable, the Apple TV's menu gives me the full range of progressive display options (including 1080p).

Just did another camcorder test.

I used video/audio recorded by a Panasonic SDR-S10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuGqs1VpgP4

This camcorder records interlaced MPEG-2 video/audio to memory cards using the .MOD file extension.

I opened the raw .MOD files using a program called "MPEG Streamclip" here:

http://www.squared5.com/

I then exported from "MPEG Streamclip" using FILE > EXPORT TO MPEG-4 and I was then presented with Apple iTunes > APPLE TV encoding options.

I selected the option to re-encode my Panasonic files using the following parameters:

H.264
640 x 480 @ 4.92Mbps
29.97 frames per second
MPEG-4 audio stereo @ 256Kbps (48Khz sampling rate)

I then imported this converted file into Apple iTunes and it played splendidly... the re-encode even preserved the interlace so that it would display on the interlaced tube TVs perfectly.

Wow.

That was cool.

My next experiments will be with the high definition video/audio recorded by the Sony HDR-UX1 AVCHD camcorder.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

By the way, the...

The ($230 at Circuit City) Panasonic SDR-S10...

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcorders/Camcorders/Hard-Disk-Drive/SD-Camcorders/model.SDR-S10_11002_7000000000000005702

...and the ($199 at Wal-Mart) Sanyo VPC-CG6...

http://www.sanyo-dsc.com/english/products/vpc_cg6/index.html

...are good examples of miniature pocket camcorders.

The Sanyo shoots progressive.

The Panasonic shoots interlaced.

The Panasonic model compresses with MPEG-2, which is less efficient than the Sanyo's MPEG-4, but the Panasonic's peak data rate is nearly three times as high.

The Panasonic is best for people who want a format that can go directly to DVD-video disc with display on an interlaced tube TV.

If you want to display the Panasonic video on the Web, then you'll need to deinterlace the video (or one could use a player that could deinterlace on-the-fly) and convert to a Web format.

The Sanyo is a great Web camcorder and the video looks plenty crisp on flat panel progressive displays.

However, both camcorders lack microphone inputs.

Bad.

The built-in mics pick up sound from generated by the camcorders themselves.

With the Panasonic, you have to put it on a tripod. If you don't put it on a tripod, its auto-focus mechanism will create a buzzing sound that picks up on the memory card recordings. However, the Panasonic zoom is silent.

With the Sanyo, you can move it around all you want and you won't hear any auto-focus mechanism on the memory card recordings. However, if you use the zoom while you are recording, you'll pick up the noise of the zoom on the recordings.

So both camcorders illustrate the difficulty the manufacturers are encountering as they try to meet the demand of people who want tiny pocket camcorders.

Kind of interesting.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

For those who suffer from pixel-envy and are humiliating yourselves by submitting to the 1080p marketing b.s., I would suggest you read this excellent article:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/1080p_a_year_later.html

To best understand the migration from 720p and 768p resolution to 1080p flat-panel and rear-projection displays, you need to consider market economics above all. The main reason any manufacturer would want to sell a 1080p rear-projection TV is that they can charge more for it than a 720p or 768p. Simple as that! ... For many of you sitting on the sidelines, you haven’t missed much as market and technical realities are finally catching up with all of that early 1080p hype and buzz.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Example of the hype.

1. Virtually all 1080 programming is acquired as 1080/24p

2. Virtually all 1080 programming is distributed as 1080i.

A 1080p TV must process 1080i -- artificially -- to display 1080p so that it doesn't look crappy.

Just having 1920x1080 pixels at your disposal doesn’t mean much if your HDTV doesn’t fully process 1080i signals. That means splitting each frame into two fields with 540 odd and even lines, then integrating them into full 1080 frames with three-axis motion interpolation.

These steps require quite a bit of processing power, but are worth it when you consider that all 1080 HD content transmitted by North American cable head ends, satellite services, and broadcast stations is in the 1080i/29.97 format, even movies that originated as 1080p/24 edit masters.

Movies tolerate the interlacing process much better than live HD programs. Sports in particular have all kinds of interlaced artifacts that must be cleaned up during the conversion to progressive scan. Simple “weaving” together of the odd and even fields won’t cut the mustard on a large 1080p set – you’ll see any shortcomings in the HDTV’s processor pretty quickly.

The other problem with 1080i signals is that they are usually overcompressed, resulting in aliased curves and mosquito noise. Add those MPEG artifacts to an interlaced signal and you’ve got quite a mess to straighten out — one which won’t be as obvious on a 34-inch CRT or even a 42-inch plasma, but one which will leap off a big screen TV. Once again, the display may be too good for the delivery system!

CLOSE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK?

When all is said and done, 1080p isn’t for everyone, even though it will become the default resolution for some segments of the HDTV display market over the next year. For many of you sitting on the sidelines, you haven’t missed much as market and technical realities are finally catching up with all of that early 1080p hype and buzz.

Are you a die-hard sports nut? Watch a lot of ESPN, ABC Sports, or Fox Sports in HD? All three networks cover and broadcast sporting events in the 720p/60 format, so an HDTV with that resolution is more than adequate, unless you are sitting right on top of the screen.

Link to the full article:

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/1080p_a_year_later.html

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

And...

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/

...reveals why 720p @ 60 frames per second beats so-called 1080i.

Since virtually no production programming is acquired at 1080 @ 60 frames per second, this leaves only 1080 @ 24 frames per second.

It will be a long time before we even see programming acquired using true 1080 @ 60 frames-per-second equipment.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Marshmallowman]

Have you got shares in apple, or pehaps a new job working for them?