Sony has lost over $3 billion on the PS3 (1 Viewer)

[Paul Kemp]

Some would argue it is a valid criticism of some U.S. televisions and a mere 'observation' of the PS3.

 

[Edwin-S]

It is a valid criticism of the sets, but it is also a valid criticism of the PS3. SONY would have been well aware that some U.S and Canadian sets would not support 720p input; furthermore, their direct competitor in the console market provided the function.

It didn't make any sense at all for SONY not to include upscaling of 720p content. Unless, of course, a person wants to subscribe to the theory that it was done deliberately, in an attempt to prod buyers into upgrading their sets.

 

[Paul Kemp]

Good idea! Sony do make Televisions. However some have claimed that having to use 480p means that the PS3 has PS2/X-Box style graphics. The mistake here is in assuming that resolution is the be-all-and-end-all of graphics, which it is not, just as I would suggest that resolution is perhaps one of the least significant benefits of going Blu Ray.

 

[CptGreedle]

That is a very interesting viewpoint. So what would you say IS the most significant benefit of Blu-ray?

 

[Paul Kemp]

With SD-DVD, we reached the limits of what you can achieve via MPEG-2 encoding in 9.4Gb before we reached the limits of how much information can be conveyed in 480 lines (or 580, as is the case here in Britain).

With HD-DVD and Blu Ray, we have surpassed those limits - encoding artefacts are all but eradicated on a good transfer, colour gamut and depth are wider and broader respectively, giving more realistic hues and tones and able to paint the original celluloid with a much more accurate digital representation.

1080 lines of course have their benefits for users of extremely large screen sizes. One of the problems with marketing Blu Ray is, how do you persuade the public of its appeal? In the transition from VHS to DVD, the benefits were immediately apparent and both visibile and attainable for all age groups. The conundrum with Blu Ray is how do you create a similar distinction? It is hard to market the things I have mentioned - try explaining to your average punter the inherent superiority of VC1 over MPEG-2, or of the benefits of improved colour depth and a wider gamut.

1080 lines has been pushed to the fore because it's easy to explain and - with a big enough screen - it's easy to perceive. In the UK there is an inertia for manufacturers to include native 1080p panels on screens as small as 32" for people who use it as a casual lounge room television - a clear cut case of people falling for the marketing guff. In my opinion, a display should be chosen for its colour accuracy, its black depth and whether it suits your logistical needs (price, features, size, aesthetics etc).

Resolution is a nice caveat to flaunt on the shop floor but the only thing we enthusiasts should deduce from its marketing success is that people are increasingly looking toward their home entertainment systems to blur the distinction between reality and fantasy - a suspension of disbelief, which NTSC and PAL did perfectly well, is no longer adequate.

The implications of this are of course for psychologists to speculate upon rather than engineers like myself, but it's something worth considering never the less

 

[Jari K]

Get "Metal Gear Solid 4". It´s like a movie, basically. And one super-awesome game. In one package. And only in PS3.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

We have a thread in the Video Games forum on PS3 wheels. I got the Logitech Driving Force EX for $59 at Walmart and I'm very happy with it. Most stores only seem to sell the more expensive models (I had to order the EX online for in-store pickup). Looks like Newegg is selling it for that price too now.

 

[CptGreedle]

That is a very good point. With Blu-ray, there are far fewer artifacts and other errors and limitations than with DVD, despite the resolution. That is a great tool, but not many people would buy something for those reasons alone.
Interactive menus and internet connectivity are nice but again, nothing worth the investment in and of itself. I think it is really the combination of HD resolution, higher quality audio and video, and advanced features that make Blu-ray such an appeal. Perhaps resolution is over-rated, perhaps it is over-hyped, but it is a strong selling point nonetheless.
I know many people that "like" distorted images, cropped movies, and worse (often out of ignorance or laziness). For them, color depth, 24p, and encodes mean nothing. Convincing them to buy Blu-ray is very hard, since they are so happy with "full screen" (shudder) DVDs and such.
As more people buy HDTVs, more people will find out about Blu-ray. We enthusiasts are the only ones that are really concerned with all the technical and subtle nuances of Blu-ray movies. We have to lead the charge into Blu-ray, by setting the standards. Eventually, the rest will buy in as well, not knowing all the advances it has made, the better quality it offers. Some day, they will look back at DVD and say "I can't believe we ever watched that!"

As for an explanation why DVD isn't good enough for us anymore, to me it is simply that we are always striving for something closer to reality than ever before. As DVDs had clearly better quality, it was the obvious choice, and if there were no other options, it would still be that way. But as technology around us gets better, we see advances in everything from iPods and cellphones, to computers and electronic books. As they advance, we expect other things to as well. it is only natural that, after seeing an ipod with a 201 ppi screen, we want to see a TV with the same kind of resolution.

 

[Paul Kemp]

Another thing to consider, without wanting to stumble into a diatribe on the perplexities of the modern consumer, is that you didn't need to change anything else to appreciate the benefit of SD-DVD over VHS. Hook a DVD player up to an old CRT box and still the difference was noticeable.

DVD it is true has inspired a lot of people to make the leap to digital, flat panel displays and front projection systems, which are themselves often well placed to reveal the potential benefits of going Blu Ray. But DVD saturated the market so well because it had the capacity to be a one-off purchase - buy a DVD player and the benefits were immediate, the consumer was easily gratified.

Blu Ray does not have that capacity. Want to see the benefits of VC1 over MPEG-2? Get a TV based on some kind of digital technology, which must be high def and have a suitable spec sheet. Want to hear the benefits of lossless over Dolby Digital? Better invest a good amount of money in the necessary equipment.

DVD could appeal to everybody because it was, to an extent, a 'self contained' product. Blu Ray cannot - it requires that the consumer lay down a vast quantity of money in order to realise its potential, and then pay a premium for the software titles, as well as navigate the maze of compatibility issues which have presented themselves in recent years. Factor in the current economic climate - when many of the world's major economies might well be on the verge of a recession - and the argument for Blu Ray really scaling the heights of SD-DVD becomes less and less compelling.

Sony have banded statistics around explaining how Blu Ray is growing quicker than DVD did, but my prediction would be that the saturation point for Blu Ray - like SACD before it - is going to be much lower than Sony had hoped for. Even if modern citizenry isn't getting everything it requires from reality - and the recent obsessions with interests which permit the total suspension of disbelief suggests that they aren't - economics will always rule.

Sony have lost a lot of money on this format - and I reckon they will lose a lot more just yet. Will they eventually turn over a profit? Perhaps. Will Blu Ray ever rival SD-DVD's popularity? I have my doubts!

 

[CptGreedle]

That is a good point.
I am surprised that Blu-ray has been as popular as it is so far. Looking at all the data I can find, it looks like it is doing fairly well and slowly growing. But for how long? The economy is not doing well, and this hurts everything. Blu-ray is definitely a "luxury product", something most people are not thinking about.
Economy aside (since it will affect so much more than just Blu-ray), I think the Feb 2009 digital broadcast requirements will be a huge boost for HDTV sales. Most TVs for sale now are HDTVs, and with continuing price drops, they should be easier to attain. It is not a requirement that people buy an HDTV, but I think most will do it just because, or just not know any better.
But all this is speculation.
The real test will be to look at the market this holiday season through March. If there is a boom in HDTV sales (and i a sure the prices will be low), there is hope yet.

 

[Paul Kemp]

Yes, the nature of product cycles will mean that, eventually, televisions which are in some way High Definition will become standard in the home. The SD panels of yesteryear will not last forever.

But will this alone secure Blu Ray's future? I have my doubts. It would have to come in to price alignment with SD-DVD, such that people who have the necessary hardware are left with the 'why not' argument to chew over. The problem is as you say, Blu Ray is a premium, luxury product at the moment. And like all commodities, when the economy turns south, they suffer - they cost more as a result of inflation and they are less attainable as the average punter has less wealth they can release.

Sony have to 'standardise' the format for it to become a success - huge gaps between SD-DVD and Blu Ray release dates inhibit this, as does price, as does their insistence of cataloging some of the most stupid films ever made onto Blu Ray (why bother!?).

It will for the time being remain an enthusiast's market. We can but hope it doesn't follow the same dull fate as SACD.

 

[Carlo_M]

People tend to forget exactly how hard it was for DVD to get mass acceptance. It was far from a sure thing. In 1997, most people had a 25"-32" direct view set, which did *not* readily show the difference between DVD and VHS/Broadcast unless it happened to have S-Video, which most did not. Component video would not be commonplace in consumer sets for several years.

Also, DVD had the huge--and those of us in the hobby back then will tell you how huge it was--hurdle known as "Those Darned Black Bars". While hobbyists understood the purpose of letterboxing, the mass market consumer saw it as losing 20-40% of their already small viewing screen.

And, only four of the seven big studios supported DVD at launch. I believe the last studio finally came on board in 1999, two years after DVD's launch. It was full studio support and larger screen sizes supporting component video [and some would argue the porn industry releasing DVDs] that really helped the format to take off.

So yes, while ideally studios would have loved for BD to be adopted more quickly than it has, in hindsight and in comparison to DVD it's doing fine in comparison.

As with DVD, the benefits of 1080p are evident with 40" or larger screen size, it is only a matter of time before the average household will have that size of TV. BD has already largely overcome the OAR hurdle, but it did have to combat with HD-DVD which no doubt slowed the acceptance rate of the format. But all studios are now on board, and the final spec has been established. This fiscal year (2008/9) will show if the format will grow into a viable alternative or fade away. The looming recession (is it looming or already here?) may skew the numbers down a bit, but overall if BD doesn't experience decent growth this FY, it may signify that it will be destined to be a niche format. Not that there's much wrong with that, LD did fine as a niche format. But I for one hope it succeeds so that I can enjoy my films in 1080p glory.

 

[Paul Kemp]

This is again where comparisons become difficult because the nature of the domestic market here in Britain was somewhat different to how things operated in the states.

The black bars issue was very quickly overcome here by DVD players offering a 'pan & scan' option - filling a 4:3 screen with widescreen material. As far as the necessity of component inputs is concerned, in Europe we have the SCART system capable of transmitting RGB data (not component quality, but very close) and the comparisons between VHS and DVD were visible on even the smallest of screens as a result.

Similarly, the benefits of DVD were not exclusively quality related - although that was a big issue. Most people recall VHS getting chewed up on occasion by a faulty machine, problems with alignment between tape and 'heads', having to rewind and there being no instant access/chapter skipping. These were big logistical issues that people were tired off and DVD provided an effective alternative.

The same distinctions cannot be made between SD and Blu Ray. What are the chief problems with SD? They are almost exclusively quality related and haven't inspired complaint from all sectors of the consumer market. There are no 'logistical' difficulties with SD that Blu Ray overcomes.

I would like to think that quality will drive uptake, but I am not convinced it will happen. The quality of the film is and will remain the domineering factor, the other factors being somewhat 'incidental'. SACD didn't take off because it was creating engineering led solutions to problems that most people just weren't concerned with. Blu Ray may fail for broadly the same reasons.