Fox dreaming of a future where Blu-ray movies load faster, are judged by the content of their character(s)

At least someone is (seemingly) listening to our Blu-ray gripes. /Film hit a Fox hosted press summit and heard exactly the things we've been waiting to hear: a future where "advanced" Blu-ray players can do what DVD players have done for years: automatically resume play where we left off on all players, dramatically reduced load times and a live demo of the IMDB Live Lookup feature available on the Wolverine release. The company has nabbed a researcher from Panasonic, Joe McCrossan, who is heading up the efforts to improve viewer's experience and tossing around long promised buzzwords like iPhone connectivity and Digital Copy along with the previously mentioned features under development -- if he succeeds on making them reality we'll rename an Engadget editor Joe in his honor, and it might not even be the one already named Joe.

[Thanks, chevelleman]

[Hexydes Posted Oct 1st 2009 2:57PM]

The thing about a higher-resolution though...is that it doesn't really make any sense. You can't really tell a difference (sitting 6+ feet away) between 720p and 1080p until you get up to about a 47" screen. To make that same argument for 1080p vs. something higher (say 2160p or "Quad HD"), you'd need to have screens that are something like 70" and above. You're now starting to hit the physical limitations of most peoples' walls/rooms. Even at 50", unless you have a large living room or a dedicated home theater room, that's going to exceed most peoples' ideal picture size.

This is why I continue to make the argument that picture quality is largely becoming irrelevant. While many on Engadget can tell a difference between 720p and 1080p on a large enough screen, the average consumer simply can't. They will be happy with a DVD on a 42" television. Bump that up to 720p (EASILY streamable on most cable connections using H.264 compression) and add in the ease of access that comes from online delivery, and that is what is going to win people over. It's the same thing as DVD vs. VHS, except the quality is even less of an issue now, whereas the extras (no rewinding, remembering where you left off, etc) are all there.

[Wwhat Posted Oct 1st 2009 12:41PM]

Uhm, nice for those that didn't already decide downloading was the way to go I guess, good for you guys.

[Soundguy Posted Oct 1st 2009 1:31PM]

"Neat, all things I can do on the digital copy on my computer right now. Remind me again why people are interested in a physical distribution medium?"

Because it's the only way you can get high definition. I mean, think about it. "High def" downloads are half the size of a dual layer conventional DVD. You say you get 1080 lines? Plug your old 200-line VCR into your video processor, and you'll get 1080 lines with that too.
Will that change as bandwidth increases? At the moment it's not increasing but decreasing. Does the word "throttling" ring a bell? How about "traffic shaping"?

[clarinetJWD Posted Oct 1st 2009 1:32PM]

Using my Blu-Ray drive in Windows 7 with ArcSoft's software, I can even eject the disc, and it still picks up where I left off... Media PCs FTW

[Wwhat Posted Oct 1st 2009 7:17PM]

I so dislike that arcsoft crap, it phones home more than a neurotic alien with mommy issues.
And it has so much extra crap running that is not needed at all.
I don't get why companies actually bill the inclusion of arcsoft stuff as a benefit.

[HorseToothedJackss Posted Oct 1st 2009 1:41PM]

Perhaps they can make Blu-Ray "movie content" updates so Lucas can continue to change Star Wars until he has completely destroyed my childhood.

[polidiotic Posted Oct 1st 2009 6:06PM]

lol, classic.

[sberfield Posted Oct 1st 2009 3:46PM]

I guess I just don't get why anyone would ever buy a disc of any kind.

Apart fomr when you have small children and have to watch The Lion King 450 times a year (don't ask) -- how many times can you watch the same movie over and over again?

I can see a true video/movie-phile wanting the best possible versions, but for most people, I just don't understand why they would spend the money.

Between Netflix rental, Netflix streaming, and all the various on-demand setups, there is so much content out there that I can't get to most of it as it is.