Online Hi-Def vs. Blu-Ray

In article , Just Visiting wrote:
Well, here we go again! This format war should be more interesting
than the last one. Since online video has exploded in the last couple
of years, anyone can save their favorite movies and clips to any media
they want. The movie studios will probably require registration per
movie per IP address. Toshiba could still offer a hardware solution
for this market though. The cable, phone and satellite companies will
make out with this one, too. However, somebody will still offer a
retail or mail order movie business if the studios are willing to
license their material on various types of media versus online
distribution. It doesn't have to be limited to Blu-Ray with the
threat of hi-def online content. For the consumer, it has to be an
offer that will last for many years to come. Isn't competition great?
Hee-hee...
You forget that very few have the high speed connections necessary to receive
HD programing via internet, a very small percentage of Americans have
broadband. Plus most of those that do have some sort of bandwidth limiting or
download limitations where when you hit a certain gigabyte limit imposed by
your provider, you end up paying huge amounts to add more bandwidth.

In article , FDR wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
FDR wrote:
flambe wrote:
Being a curmudgeon is one thing, seeing where things are headed is
another. As the internet pipeline widens nearly all content delivery
will move there, particularly the delivery of pre-recorded materials.
DVD has made inroads in portable devices but the market will move to
an ipod style download model over the long term, as will what people
now regard as OTA/Cable/Satellite television.
Unfortunately in the rush to move to this model consumers will have
to endure compression schemes as bad or worse than what we are now
seeing. However as bandwidth increases this will improve if
consumers demand it: alas most consumers are morons.

Wait until your pc becomes a cheap applicance where nearly all
programs will be run from a remote server. Yourhard drive will be
just a redundant back up drive.

Taint gunna happen, you watch.



I'd like to believe it won't. But big companies who are tired of piracy
will resort to this.
And i will resort to fighting back with my wallet. I will support the
companies that "Dont" do this.

In article , FDR wrote:
grant kinsley wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:04:13 -0500, FDR wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:33:13 -0500, FDR wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:20:01 -0500, FDR wrote:

flambe wrote:
Being a curmudgeon is one thing, seeing where things are headed is
another.
As the internet pipeline widens nearly all content delivery will move
there,
particularly the delivery of pre-recorded materials.
DVD has made inroads in portable devices but the market will move to an
ipod
style download model over the long term, as will what people now regard
as
OTA/Cable/Satellite television.
Unfortunately in the rush to move to this model consumers will have to
endure compression schemes as bad or worse than what we are now seeing.

However as bandwidth increases this will improve if consumers demand
it:
alas most consumers are morons.


Wait until your pc becomes a cheap applicance where nearly all programs
will be run from a remote server. Yourhard drive will be just a
redundant back up drive.
Wrong. Idiot. SOME of you dopes will go that way, but most of us will
retain stand alone, local data storage as the norm.
More companies are offering remote storage for their stuff. I'm not
saying that local won't go away, but more people will go in that
direction.

No. More DOPES will go that way.

Real people with real brains will not.
Imagine the companies telling you that you can watch your home videos or
pictures on line from anywhere in the world. That they'll guarantee you
100% protection of data loss. Things like that. I wouldn't be
surprised if it was the norm.

and you trust that that would happen without obscene copy protection
schemes, and without handy ways to lock you out of what you have
purchased.

just sayin'

G


I'm not saying that usncrupulous things may happen. Just saying that
the idea will be a selling point.

Imagine that your camera has a wireless connection built into it in the
future. It just automatically uploads to the network. Easy as cake.

My SD memory card for my Canon S3IS already is wifi capable

In article , FDR wrote:
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:38:33 -0500, FDR wrote:

Derek Janssen wrote:
FDR wrote:
And it will be sitting on a shelf collecting dust because it's
Spiderman or some other **** movie that's not worth watching more than
twice.
(Yes!--And FDR's finally down through all the "HD is better" and
"Downloads" defenses to "Who cares, all movies are crap anyway!"...We
win!) :-D
I have a shelf of DVD's. Most all have gotten one watch. I've stopped
bothering getting anymore.


Then you should also stop bothering to spew your retarded horse**** in
these groups as well, as you are obviously someone that knows
abso-****ing-lutely nothing about it.

Can you throw in a few more ****s and ****s? If you do everyone will
see how good of an argument you have.
Many of us sitting back watching this arguement are having a few "****s and
Giggles".

In article , FDR wrote:
MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:32:08 -0500, FDR wrote:

MakeNoAttemptToAdjustYourSet wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:19:41 -0500, FDR wrote:

No. There isn't. Splaying something out of your cable box at 1080 does
not make the content in that signal that resolved. Easily proven by the
fact that an old std NTSC signal can and is fed through many of the "HD"
channels you claim are HD.
Technically HD is anything from 720 and up.
You missed the point entirely. My cable box puts out 1080 regardless of
what channel I am watching. I could set it to 720 as well. The point is
that that does NOT mean that the original content is at that level, or
that it ever was, or that it will be after the cable company gets through
with it.
And my point was that the cable company could provide you with 720 and
up and call it HD properly.


It may well be at an HD array size, but degrading the content via
compression renders said content to a realm that is arguably other than
HD.

MAYBE one day you will understand this statement.

So you're saying that they are providing me with a real 720 or 1080
signal but it's not HD? Is that your argument?

Most the time it is only upconverted SD programming.


When I'm watching the Super Bowl on tv, and I switch from the local Fox
HD broadcast over cable to the same HD Fox station by antenna and they
look the same, I'm supposed to take your word that cable can't supply me
with a HD signal?

In article , FDR wrote:
T.B. wrote:
"FDR" farted:

On Feb 16, 10:40 am, Just Visiting
wrote:
Well, here we go again! This format war should be more interesting
than the last one. Since online video has exploded in the last couple
of years, anyone can save their favorite movies and clips to any media
they want. The movie studios will probably require registration per
movie per IP address. Toshiba could still offer a hardware solution
for this market though. The cable, phone and satellite companies will
make out with this one, too. However, somebody will still offer a
retail or mail order movie business if the studios are willing to
license their material on various types of media versus online
distribution. It doesn't have to be limited to Blu-Ray with the
threat of hi-def online content. For the consumer, it has to be an
offer that will last for many years to come. Isn't competition great?
Hee-hee...

People largely have accepted lossy compression in music files in the
form of mp3 files, they will also accept lossy compressed video on
demand. You better believe the studios will insist on lossy
compression for downloaded content.



Exactly. A generation raised on crappy MP3's, crappy players, and
crappy 3 inch screens on their portable players. And somehow people
here think that HD players will make people orgasm versus DVD's.


Thus the continued sales failure of large screen hd tvs, right? I mean,
as no one wants high quality video in their home, the proliferation of 7
inch monitors in living rooms across the nation is booming, right?

There's a profliferation of 7 inch monitors across the roads of America,
if you haven't noticed.



In most states in the US, its illegal to even have a TV or monitor mounted for
viewing in the front area where a driver can be distracted. Rear Tv's like
what they have in minvans and the like are ok because its not for viewing by
the driver.

"ChairmanOfTheBored" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:33:13 -0500, FDR wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:20:01 -0500, FDR wrote:

flambe wrote:
Being a curmudgeon is one thing, seeing where things are headed is
another.
As the internet pipeline widens nearly all content delivery will move
there,
particularly the delivery of pre-recorded materials.
DVD has made inroads in portable devices but the market will move to
an ipod
style download model over the long term, as will what people now
regard as
OTA/Cable/Satellite television.
Unfortunately in the rush to move to this model consumers will have to
endure compression schemes as bad or worse than what we are now
seeing.
However as bandwidth increases this will improve if consumers demand
it:
alas most consumers are morons.


Wait until your pc becomes a cheap applicance where nearly all programs
will be run from a remote server. Yourhard drive will be just a
redundant back up drive.

Wrong. Idiot. SOME of you dopes will go that way, but most of us
will
retain stand alone, local data storage as the norm.

More companies are offering remote storage for their stuff. I'm not
saying that local won't go away, but more people will go in that
direction.


No. More DOPES will go that way.

Real people with real brains will not.

Incorrect.

GMAN wrote:
In article , FDR wrote:
StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:38:33 -0500, FDR wrote:

Derek Janssen wrote:
FDR wrote:
And it will be sitting on a shelf collecting dust because it's
Spiderman or some other **** movie that's not worth watching more than
twice.
(Yes!--And FDR's finally down through all the "HD is better" and
"Downloads" defenses to "Who cares, all movies are crap anyway!"...We
win!) :-D
I have a shelf of DVD's. Most all have gotten one watch. I've stopped
bothering getting anymore.

Then you should also stop bothering to spew your retarded horse**** in
these groups as well, as you are obviously someone that knows
abso-****ing-lutely nothing about it.
Can you throw in a few more ****s and ****s? If you do everyone will
see how good of an argument you have.
Many of us sitting back watching this arguement are having a few "****s and
Giggles".

Yeah, it's like a bunch of six year olds using sticks for guns.

"BANG! you're dead!!"

"No I'm not, BANG-BANG!! YOU'RE DEAD!

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

GMAN wrote:
In most states in the US, its illegal to even have a TV or monitor mounted for
viewing in the front area where a driver can be distracted. Rear Tv's like
what they have in minvans and the like are ok because its not for viewing by
the driver.

Apparently not here, since I see ads all the time for in-dash DVD
players with either built-in or pop-up screens. I was thinking of
getting one more for the DVD-MP3 capability than anything.

In article , wrote:
GMAN wrote:
In most states in the US, its illegal to even have a TV or monitor mounted
for
viewing in the front area where a driver can be distracted. Rear Tv's like
what they have in minvans and the like are ok because its not for viewing by
the driver.

Apparently not here, since I see ads all the time for in-dash DVD
players with either built-in or pop-up screens. I was thinking of
getting one more for the DVD-MP3 capability than anything.
Well i should rephrase what i was writing. Its illegal to use an in dash TV
while the vehicle is in motion. Its different if you are parked.