[Shifty Geezer]

I'm surprised that optical pits could deterioate over time. Aren't they physical indentations, similar to vinyl being physical variations on the disc? Unless the plastic degrades a little over time and loses integrity. Those pits are very small.

[goonergaz]

I have a couple of dead CDs (originals) - I think it's down to how you look after them - temps, humidity etc...certainly they initially branded '100 year lifetimes' and that will not be true.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by randycat99

...to the fullest extent of the DVD That is the criteria you are applying to the BR scenario, but strangely seem to spare in the DVD scenario. No one is arguing if you could connect a DVD player to a TV in some manner, in that time period. Could the majority do it in component or dvi connection? Did the majority of CRT's have the razor sharp resolution to show off full DVD potential? Did the majority of TV's have progressive capability? That is the logical extension of the criteria you are weighing.

No, actually it's not. You are now talking about the fullest potential. I'm talking about any noticable difference whatsoever.

Without component, DVI or progressive capability the majority of TVs saw a noticable difference between VHS and DVD.

When BR appears, it will be a minority of TVs that will see a noticable difference between DVD and BR.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

You're kinda missing the point though, DVD wasn;t involved in a format war and BluRay is. So any additional momentum they can gain, which PS3 will surely provide, could possibly help them win this war and eventually be one of the single biggest factors that led to the mass adoption 5-10 years down the road.

I don't think installed base matters nearly as much as attachment rate.

I really don't think the majority of media producers will care if there's 50M BR players installed through PS3 purchases if only a small fraction of them are purchasing media other than PS3 games.

[randycat99]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

No, actually it's not. You are now talking about the fullest potential. I'm talking about any noticable difference whatsoever.

Doesn't matter- it's all the same metric, just on different scales. You don't get to cherrypick where it should be relevant and where it should be disregarded.

Without component, DVI or progressive capability the majority of TVs saw a noticable difference between VHS and DVD.

...and it would be silly to just "quit" improving the connection format at RF and composite, simply because an improvement was perceived just with that. Additionally, the context of your example becomes even more strained when you consider if the perceived improvement came more from the superiority of DVD or more from the inherent horrendous-ness of VHS or some ratio between those 2 extremes. The nature of home theater is to elevate to the "best of" in all areas, until no further benefits are possible. DVD was enjoyed at all sorts of performance levels based on what the user has available, just as BR will will be enjoyed at all sorts of performance levels based on what the user has available.

When BR appears, it will be a minority of TVs that will see a noticable difference between DVD and BR.

How do you base this assumption? Simply out of numerical resolution? There's more to it than just 2 numbers for horizontal and vertical. W/o actually making the observations directly, there is not much credibility. Hence, we'll have to see if this is the case, when it can actually be monitored, rather than blindly generate arguments to the contrary prior to the fact.

As an example, technically digital sdtv broadcasts completely fulfills the resolution capabilities on an sdtv. Using your logic, no perceptible improvement should be possible when showing hd material downscaled to that same sdtv. If you have been able to observe this in real practice, you would be fully aware that there is most certainly a difference. How can this be??? 640x480 is 640x480, no? Maybe it isn't. (Also consider how the resolution could remain exactly the same, but somehow an uncompressed still pic image capture ends up looking better than the same still pic image capture with hi-quality jpeg, which ends up looking better than a compressed mpeg2 clip which contains the very same moment of the original still pic. Resolution is exactly the same, but there is an easily distinct difference in the 3 different samples.)

Therein is the logical element that trips up a lot of so-called "experts" on the topic of high performance video. For all we know, the 640x480 coming off of a DVD is still not the best that uncompressed 640x480 video is capable of. It's counterintuitive, but it wisely accounts for the fact that format resolution is one thing, but it still fails to address the quality of the image presented at that format resolution. Hence, the potential exists for a higher quality 640x480 image may be noticeably better than the "typical" DVD 640x480 image quality (even though DVD quality is already very good). What better way to create this scenario than sourcing from a format with overkill resolution, downsampled to the target 640x480 for the display device? Similarly, it is fairly well accepted that a professional 4:2:2 color set will look better than 4:2:0 color set, using the exact same technical resolution. Such a benefit now becomes possible when downscanning HD material to SD resolutions (not saying it is a given, but the crucial elements are certainly in place to implement such a benefit). All of these possibilities are plausible and fairly likely. The only remaining step is to simply wait and see and try it out when the opportunity presents...

[scooby_dooby]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

I don't think installed base matters nearly as much as attachment rate.

It doesn't mater as much, but it still DOES matter which is the point. If BR and HD-DVD are very close, that install base could tip the scale. Or it could not. But the potential is certainly there for PS3 to be a huge factor in the eventual adoption of BR.