/g/ - Technology

>>49405446
The internet

>>49405446
>DRM
>optical media
>shit video quality

>>49405446
Nothing.
Blu-rays sell here like boys in the Vatican.

>>49405477
>shit video quality
Confirmed for never actually owning a Blu-ray.

>>49405477
This
>flash memory

>>49405446
HD DVD was a far more consumer-friendly format and the dumbass general public chose Blu-ray instead.

>>49405446
i used to buy DVDs all the time. when blu-ray came out i realised it was a pointless pursuit because formats will always be changing, so i stopped buying media entirely and started pirating instead.

Too expensive.

Nothing went wrong. They still sell extremely well.

>>49405500
>dumbass general public
The studios, you mean.
And the fact that the PS3 had a BD drive.

>>49405500
Blame Sony for making their PlayStation 3 into a cheap Blu-ray player that played games and Microsoft for not including HD-DVD support on the Xbox 360 from the outset..

>>49405520
Not compared to VHS or DVD in their prime.

>>49405489
Shit might be a bit exaggerated, but the video quality is very limited.
It's nowhere near lossless quality (pic kinda related).

>>49405500

No it wasn't.

>>49405537
That is literally the most exaggerated example physically possible.

Get a colour photograph (high resolution) and do the same.

>>49405500
>far more consumer-friendly format

How is that?

>>49405533

Well, I don't think BluRays have quite reached their prime yet, or perhaps it's because of digital movies. But I wouldn't say that something "went wrong".

did the cracking of those HD-DVD content encryption keys have any influence on the failure of HD-DVD?

>>49405538
>>49405560
No region coding for a start.

>>49405560
It was region free, but not really because YANKEE players still can't play 50Hz discs (because the seppos are retarded).

>>49405566
It pisses me off when the local Wal-Mart carries some of their newer movies on DVD only and don't bother to stock up on BDs.

>>49405477
>shit video quality
>the best video source available to the consumer
Where do you think your chinese torrents come from? They don't sell pre-recorded HDCAM-SR tapes at Woolies.

How about the fact that it is a physical medium? Its dinosaur technology. We live in a time where most people have broadband and cloud services. Blu ray is for third world countries.

can blu-ray do 4K or are we about to see another new format / format war?

>>49405566

I just haven't seen wide spread adoption of BluRay over the past decade. At least here in Australia. New releases can be found everywhere on DVD but BluRay selections are typically very limited.

>>49405446
Regions
Streaming
Physical medium

>>49405566
>Well, I don't think BluRays have quite reached their prime yet

Blu-ray has been around for almost a decade. It's not getting any bigger than it is now.

>>49405614

It's not picking up even in 3rd world countries with 90's era internet speeds.

See: >>49405623

>>49405557
Anything computer generated is easily noticeable and looks like shit at 4:2:0.
And that's not the only limitation of Bluray. It's also limited to 8 bit and so on.

>>49405604
>>the best video source available to the consumer
What's your point? I never claimed Youtube is better quality.

Fact is, Bluray to lossless video is kinda like 96kbps to lossless audio.
If you're happy with that, good for you.

>>49405618
The Blu-Ray Association is planning UHD BDs for sometime in the future. Not sure if they're dual-compatible.

Because people don't care about quality.
A blu-ray costs 25$ and a dvd costs 20$? A normalfag will buy that dvd. every. time.

VHS > DVD? Massive improvement.
DVD > BD? Not a big improvement.

Both require complete new equipment setups.

>>49405446
Nothing, you faggot.
People are just too fucking lazy and cheap to use it.

>>49405644
Well thats really laughable then. Blu ray can die anyway, it was already severely dated when it came out. I never understood people who bought them.

>>49405662
Which is why they've been so desperate to push shitty gimmicks like 3D.

>>49405648
>Anything computer generated is easily noticeable
Not really. That aliased blue to red contrast is literally the worst sample you can get. It does not happen in nearly any commercial video ever made.
8 bit is not really a problem in blu-ray either, as bitrates are well above where dithering becomes a problem.

>Fact is, Bluray to lossless video is kinda like 96kbps to lossless audio.
It's like 320kb/s AAC to FLAC.
If you can tell the difference, get a life.

>>49405673
>Not wanting to use inferior technology makes you cheap and lazy.

Okay....

>>49405662
Can DVDs output more than 480p?

>>49405703
In Europe they do 576p.

>>49405623

Hmm, that's rather strange, here in the UK, the BluRay shelves are usually the same size, or even bigger than the DVD section.

>>49405601

I can imagine it would......

>>49405703
dvd is just a storage medium. The current dvd standard is standard definition 480p whether anamorphic, 16x9, or 4x3.

Come Christmas time when the UHD bluray standard comes out, we will see people with 4k tvs flock to bluray.

>>49405696
>It's like 320kb/s AAC to FLAC.
LMAO
Those are literally indistinguishable 99.99% of the time.
You can't compare that shit to Bluray vs lossless video fam.

Wait, people still pay for media? And PHYSICAL COPIES AT THAT?!?!

HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>49405696
>It's like 320kb/s AAC to FLAC.
It is
Problem is that a lot of BD's are mastered like shit, so they look worse than HDTV streams
Japs are great at this in their chinese cartoons, the BD releases have crushed blacks and are full of banding, and are upscaled all the time

I'm more surprised DVDs are still a thing.

>>49405700
>Inferior

HAH, thats rich

>>49405648
>Fact is, Bluray to lossless video is kinda like 96kbps to lossless audio.
Well that's only because lossless video is about 40GB per 20 minutes.

I think you can agree that 240GB for one 1080p movie is beyond reasonable.

If you watch at a proper distance the limitations of Blu-ray are far less noticeable.

>>49405747
A lot of people pay for media
>what is streaming

>>49405759
>Well that's only because lossless video is about 40GB per 20 minutes.
It's much more
>I think you can agree that 240GB for one 1080p movie is beyond reasonable.
That's actually quite reasonable, cinema studios distribute losslessly compressed movies in HDD's to theaters

>>49405749
>>49405735
I'm happy to change my mind after having seen an example.

>>49405581

Bluray is region free too. You only have regions because Hollywood threw a shit fit tantrum.

>>49405614

I'm about to blow your mind. In actuality, most people, even in first world countries do not have access to broadband.

>>49405618

Yes, bluray can do 4k. The players will need to be upgraded though.

>>49405759
>>49405779
He was also slamming 8 bit and 4:2:0, so it would actually end up at 671,85 GB an hour.

>>49405662
>DVD > BD? Not a big improvement.
There is a huge improvement over DVD. The MPEG-2 limitation alone is enough.

Also you can get BD players for like 50 bucks now.

>>49405805
But is it enough to get a normalfag to switch?
No.

>>49405735

Have you even heard a flac file? The difference is night and day.

>>49405756
If you honestly believe that having an easily scratched disc that can actually lose its data over time is better than streaming or having the file on your PC NAS usb drive etc. Then I feel sorry for your ignorance.

>>49405805
>There is a huge improvement over DVD
But not the monstrous improvement that it was compared to VHS

>>49405789
>The players will need to be upgraded though

what about the bd-drive in my PC?

is it a change in the physical medium or the digital format?

>>49405779
I can't tell if you're being serious that that would be a good business model

>>49405823
>easily scratched disc that can actually lose its data over time
Scratches are easy to fix.
That and a pressed disc will outlast your children.

>>49405446
>be me circa 7 years ago
>long time halo pc player
>birthday coming up
>kind of poor family
>can either get ps3 or 360
>get 360 cause halo
>fast forward to a month ago
>360 still running strong
>miss exclusive ps2 titles
>most of my favorite games have hd re releases
>save up to buy a ps3
>fucking dies after a week of using it
>cant play game
>can still play dvds
>watch all of bebop while i search for receipt
>take it to the store to have it looked at
>blu ray drive kill
>offer to either repair or replace
>replace with smaller hard drive model and get the sly cooper collection
>come home, play halo anniversary on my ancient 360

>>49405835
You are a moron.

>>49405823
Blu-rays, much like DVDs, have their write layer sandwiched between two plastic layers.

So as long as you don't attack it with a knife any scratches can be repaired and won't damage the data layer.

And if you don't store your discs in a sauna they won't rot.

>>49405446
the speed of internet got high
i remember buying my old laptop, it had a blu ray drive and i thought man everything's gonna be on bluray in a years time

>>49405829
>what about the bd-drive in my PC?
Probably a firmware update would make it compatible, kinda like LTH was added to older drives
>is it a change in the physical medium or the digital format?
So far we don't really know, at least they will use HEVC, but that's probably not going to be enough for 4k and BT.2020

One side is 4:4:4.
One side is 4:2:0.

Both sides were compressed to the same size with jpeg (using the appropriate downsampling mode).

Which side is which?

>>49405797
Actually chroma subsampling doesn't necessarily mean smaller files.
Often the files are actually bigger and worse looking
http://users.wfu.edu/matthews/misc/jpg_vs_gif/JpgCompTest/JpgChromaSub.html

The reason 4:2:0 was adopted is because a long time ago digital interfaces (DVI, HDMI) couldn't handle the bandwidth of the decoded video.
Nowadays there's zero reason to use it, other than legacy support.

>>49405942
I have no idea what the difference even is, but the sky looks better on the right.

>>49405942
>mfw i am red/green color blind so i will never see the difference unless it is like >>49405537

>>49405964
The sky just looks bluer. What makes you think it's better?

>>49405946
>Often the files are actually bigger
This is not correct.
>and worse looking
This may be correct (but usually isn't significant) depending on the content and resolution.
In many cases, the reduction in bandwidth to be compressed means that compression can introduce less artefacts.

>>49405942
right side is 4:4:4

>>49405942
Right one it's sharper, probably 4:4:4

>>49405990

>you will never experience Christmas

Wow, I'm so sorry, man.

>>49405946
>his link disproves his own point
yawot

>>49405829

It'll be the change in the reading. Your bd drive (I have one as well) will probably need to be upgraded to faster read speed.

>>49405942
You can see the obvious compression artifacts on both and they aren't very sharp.
But I'd say right one is 4:2:0.

>>49405942
the left one is definitely 4:4:4

>>49405998
>>49406002
>>49406079
>>49406047
Here's the original images.
Right was 4:4:4 for reference.
They are both better than each other if you look in different places. This is because the 4:4:4 doesn't have subsampling artefacts, but the 4:2:0 has less compression artefacts (needing less to store).

If you needed to zoom in to see which was which, you cannot claim to see the difference, ignoring that it was 50/50.

>>49406127

>>49406015
What? The one without subsampling is both smaller and better looking.
Once you see it it's very obvious.

>>49406184

>>49406184
Read the text, numbnuts.

>>49405844
>still playin gaymes like a middle school virgin

>>49407302
>judging someone on their hobbies

bad childhood i take it?

>>49405446
Fuckin sony didn't put BD players on their own laptops with drives

>>49407835

No, they just put it into their flagship bluray device

>>49407877
They should've placed it everywhere.

>>49405508

Cuck consumers happy to rent content instead of owning it. I can't wait until Netflix and Spotify are $100 a month

>>49407835

Sony VAIO was a completely separate business unit to Sony Computer Entertainment, who make the PlayStation.

The thing about Sony is that it's really just a loose group of separately run companies, and many of those companies compete with each other.

There was no strategic direction to put BD in everything. The various businesses all go and do their own thing.

>>49408173
>owning some DRM ridden piece of plastic that is already deprecated

Just because streaming is shit doesn't mean Blu-ray isn't shit as well.

>>49405942
It's the right one, but the compression on the left one is really shitty.

>>49405446
$on¥ being the massive jew mafia they are.

>>49408362
It literally doesn't require any internet connection, how is that DRM? The only reason to use Netflix is that it's so cheap at the moment. If I had to actually buy movies, I'd just get them physically.

>>49408249
>The thing about Sony is that it's really just a loose group of separately run companies, and many of those companies compete with each other.
This. Sony Pictures just released a movie with Donkey Kong in it. You would think they would see that as counter-productive, given that Nintendo is SCEI's competition in the game console market.

>Think about buying a DVD
>It probably has DRM in it that prevents ripping.
>Blu definitely has this.
I'll stick to pirating until companies stop selling DRM without keys or use laws to prosecute me for trying to break it.

>>49405446
>what went wrong?

i'll give you 6,000,000 guesses

southpark S15E7 "you're getting old"