well, I would assume (i read the whole wikipedia page for blu-ray, but couldn't get these details about the compression and encryption) that the encryption methods used in both these discs (AACS DRM) make the video take up more disc space per second of video than the original raw video data in the studio. Of course, encryption can be used to actually reduce the amount of disc space used, but that is generally 'lossy,' and results in a lower quality image.
Therefore, the arguments made here that AVIs having quality similar to an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray Disc could make sense, as long as the original video images were equal and a lossless codec was used for the AVI. however i don't think an AVI can support that much data in a single file, so MKV files were invented to do that. Therefore, when it comes to comparing Discs to Downloads, keep in mind that similar image qualities in downloads can actually take up much less bandwidth than the data on the discs, because the data is only encrypted once for the codec in the AVI (making the files smaller by a bit, usually), whereas the discs are encrypted twice with a codec and the AACS (and i don't think lossy codecs would be used, because that would defeat the whole purpose of high volume media, wouldn't it). So, in that case the only two ways (i can think of, not that there aren't geniuses at work on this right now) downloaded movies would be smaller files would be if; one, the files aren't DRM'd because they're pirated, or; two, they aren't DRM'd because the movie industry finally gives up on that entirely and tries to spend their energy making good movies so that people buy merchandise and theater tickets. no matter how good the image quality gets, and how expensive the hardware needed to watch that video in your home becomes, watching a great movie in a nice theater on a huge screen with great acoustics will always be the better experience.
BUT, if MS or any other conspirator (people should look up what that word means, you know it has a stupid connotation that is nigh going to replace its actual meaning) were trying to stall these discs to make way for downloadable movies, those movies would likely be encrypted to larger files as well, or implement technology like the failed Viiv chip. Otherwise the data could be saved to disc, even if streamed (VLC can do it, as well as screen capture apps), and I am sure that another attempt at hardware like the Viiv (which tried to guarantee that a streamed movie would not be saved to disc) would be hacked like everything else. So, what will eventually happen? something even cooler and more awesome-o will come out and nobody will care and i will have wasted so much time writing this and people will archive this post and laugh at it like they laugh about the mistakes we all lived with for years because f the VHS/BETA wars.
in the end, though, companies make more money smply because some saps will have bought the losing hardware and then go and buy the winning hardware, lots of geeks will have to have both, football fans will still live in poverty to afford the biggest ebestest flat screen and switch it out every year, and manufacturers will continually tool both the studios and the fans around like this. The result is you get what you pay for! if people spent their money based on the content of movies, and not the barely perceptable differences between the technologies, they'd get better movies. They wouldn't obsess over image quality because they'd be immersed in the story and their excited imaginations would make it real for them.
Besides, the more you watch movies the faster you go blind, then you can't tell the difference between a super-8 and an imax image.
I personally will not buy any blu-ray, hd-dvd, or big ol' tv until it goes obsolete. Then it'll be cheap, and i can watch documentaries about people going blind and crazy trying to get the best mage quality ever.
who cares if MS is holding things up. consumers will still fork out their children's tuition and healthcare for whatever geeks on forums like this say is the best TV you can get. All this effort to numb our minds.
MS is also holding back technology to clone Kubrick. They would probably fund Bay if Kubrick was revived so that neither of them would get enough money to budget a good film.
oh, and while i'm at it, apple pwns MS even though apple is money hungry too. But Falcon Northwest pwns them all. my post pwns all your posts.
"when you build a better mousetrap, along comes a smarter mouse" -locksmiths say that.
During his WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs touted iCloud as a service that will sync many of your Apple devices, for free. Macs, iPhones, iPads, and even Windows computers can synchronize documents, contacts, calendar appointments, and other data.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
well, I would assume (i read the whole wikipedia page for blu-ray, but couldn't get these details about the compression and encryption) that the encryption methods used in both these discs (AACS DRM) make the video take up more disc space per second of video than the original raw video data in the studio. Of course, encryption can be used to actually reduce the amount of disc space used, but that is generally 'lossy,' and results in a lower quality image.
Therefore, the arguments made here that AVIs having quality similar to an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray Disc could make sense, as long as the original video images were equal and a lossless codec was used for the AVI. however i don't think an AVI can support that much data in a single file, so MKV files were invented to do that. Therefore, when it comes to comparing Discs to Downloads, keep in mind that similar image qualities in downloads can actually take up much less bandwidth than the data on the discs, because the data is only encrypted once for the codec in the AVI (making the files smaller by a bit, usually), whereas the discs are encrypted twice with a codec and the AACS (and i don't think lossy codecs would be used, because that would defeat the whole purpose of high volume media, wouldn't it). So, in that case the only two ways (i can think of, not that there aren't geniuses at work on this right now) downloaded movies would be smaller files would be if; one, the files aren't DRM'd because they're pirated, or; two, they aren't DRM'd because the movie industry finally gives up on that entirely and tries to spend their energy making good movies so that people buy merchandise and theater tickets. no matter how good the image quality gets, and how expensive the hardware needed to watch that video in your home becomes, watching a great movie in a nice theater on a huge screen with great acoustics will always be the better experience.
BUT, if MS or any other conspirator (people should look up what that word means, you know it has a stupid connotation that is nigh going to replace its actual meaning) were trying to stall these discs to make way for downloadable movies, those movies would likely be encrypted to larger files as well, or implement technology like the failed Viiv chip. Otherwise the data could be saved to disc, even if streamed (VLC can do it, as well as screen capture apps), and I am sure that another attempt at hardware like the Viiv (which tried to guarantee that a streamed movie would not be saved to disc) would be hacked like everything else. So, what will eventually happen? something even cooler and more awesome-o will come out and nobody will care and i will have wasted so much time writing this and people will archive this post and laugh at it like they laugh about the mistakes we all lived with for years because f the VHS/BETA wars.
in the end, though, companies make more money smply because some saps will have bought the losing hardware and then go and buy the winning hardware, lots of geeks will have to have both, football fans will still live in poverty to afford the biggest ebestest flat screen and switch it out every year, and manufacturers will continually tool both the studios and the fans around like this. The result is you get what you pay for! if people spent their money based on the content of movies, and not the barely perceptable differences between the technologies, they'd get better movies. They wouldn't obsess over image quality because they'd be immersed in the story and their excited imaginations would make it real for them.
Besides, the more you watch movies the faster you go blind, then you can't tell the difference between a super-8 and an imax image.
I personally will not buy any blu-ray, hd-dvd, or big ol' tv until it goes obsolete. Then it'll be cheap, and i can watch documentaries about people going blind and crazy trying to get the best mage quality ever.
who cares if MS is holding things up. consumers will still fork out their children's tuition and healthcare for whatever geeks on forums like this say is the best TV you can get. All this effort to numb our minds.
MS is also holding back technology to clone Kubrick. They would probably fund Bay if Kubrick was revived so that neither of them would get enough money to budget a good film.
oh, and while i'm at it, apple pwns MS even though apple is money hungry too. But Falcon Northwest pwns them all. my post pwns all your posts.
"when you build a better mousetrap, along comes a smarter mouse"
-locksmiths say that.