Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Blue ray burning - Is Darth Vadar the only who does that?  (Read 2823 times)
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


WWW
« on: November 15, 2010, 06:40:49 PM »
ReplyReply

For better or for worse I am currently saddled with an AVCHD workflow. So far I have even figured out how to edit it but am not sure about what to do when that is done.

Until now I have just stored the small test HD movies I have made on my computer's hard drive or uploaded them to youtube. I also burned one to a DVD that worked ok but from this exercise learned that DVDs are probably not going to be a viable option for backing up and distributing 60 minute HD features  Undecided

Hence my interest in blue ray that I understand is a new format that has beat out the competition but has still not established itself as a household name - at least not here in Ghana where I am working at the moment.

Meanwhile my trusty old DVD burner has just died. So am trying to figure out if I should invest a little extra in a replacement burner that can burn and read Blue Ray discs or just stick with a regular DVD burner?

So I would like to ask:

How do you back up and store your HD movies?

How many of your friends, colleagues and clients have a Blue Ray player?

Thanks for any input you care to give

Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2010, 09:29:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Blu-Ray is undoubtedly the dominant format for the physical distribution of HDTV content now.
Once the local supermarket starts selling the disks without a big premium you know it's established ;-)

In UK people are moving to Blu-Ray as they upgrade to HD and from I've read this pattern is happening across the globe.

Disk and burners are falling in price, to the point where you're not going to loose hideous amounts in depreciation by buying into the format, even though it is still comparatively young.

I still archive master material to HDD first and then to DVD, but I haven't shot a lot of HD content at home yet. I would be reluctant to archive solely to BR at the moment without knowing more about the proven long term stability of the medium.
Finished output goes to BR.

Paul
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2010, 09:56:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe that Blu-Ray's day is already well past. Any physical media of this modest size is likely to become unwieldly as a storage medium and is currently really only good for those who wish to play HD video from a physical product.

The future lies in less expensive, more easily duplicated and simply-stored media. That position is held to day by HDD. Hard drives are cheap per GB, generally reliable and highly practical. Hopefully in the future, SolidStateDrives will begin to occupy that space or perhaps some other smaller more dense media.

Unless you have a stack of BluRay disks you want to watch, buy some extra 1.5 TB hard drives.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2010, 11:02:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the precise replies.

HDs are cheap and don't seem likely to become redundant or stop working any faster than I am likely to do.

Main problem is distribution until everybody gets a blue ray capable player that is not the case yet though according to Rhossydd's informative post seems like this is changing. What playback format is standard in a road warrior's laptop these days?

Maybe would be interesting to do a poll to see who today has a blue ray player and/or burner and who doesn't.

Meanwhile according to this thread just found on an apple forum some options seem to be to throw the baby out with the bath water by either converting from HD to SD or slashing the bitrate before burning to DVD, who wants to do that? Otherwise seems the max full HD that can fit on a standard DVD is only about 20 minutes that is probably ok for most semipro projects but not always.

Reminds me of the catch-22 I encountered producing big photos that look better than small ones but are also much harder to circulate.

Well at least this is not a problem with HDV Wink

Maybe best to just keep all the gear in a dry cabinet and write haiku on maple leaves?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:04:55 AM by lowep » Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2010, 02:55:17 PM »
ReplyReply

is currently really only good for those who wish to play HD video from a physical product.
Which is what the OP was asking for!

There are precious few DVD players that can play HD content from a DVD disk to a HDTV, if any, so to see full HD you're almost certainly going to have access to a Blu_ray player anyway.
Blu-ray disks are cheap, robust and, now, THE standard for physical distribution of HD material and that's not likely to change for many years now.

In answer to "How many of your friends, colleagues and clients have a Blue Ray player?" my own answer is all of them, but then I'm not a representative sample of the population because of my profession. Hence the comment about my local supermarket stocking BRs is a better indicator of it's widespread adoption.
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2010, 03:29:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you are still better off in practical & $$ playing/storing HD video on a hard drive and if required from a media drive with HDMI Out or through a set-top box
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2010, 03:29:43 PM »
ReplyReply

so store on HD and distribute on BR disk  Huh
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2010, 04:31:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Distribute en masse by upload/download.
Deliver to a broadcaster/distributor on HD
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
lowep
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2010, 04:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Upload / download is excellent option - within limits, such as:

upload/download time - not everybody is as patient as I am when it comes to looking at my work

network - not good option if network is slow or down

storage - not everybody has available space on their private or small office computer system to store a slew of downloaded HD

Needless to say the other limit is that not everybody  Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin >:(has a Blue Ray player 

 




Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2010, 04:58:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Distribute en masse by upload/download.
Not yet. Maybe when we're all connected by fibre, but not any time soon.

Have you ever tried to upload a 40gb file ? or tried to download a similar volume ? or seen how much of most people's allowance that represents ?
It's hardly a practical proposition in the west let alone in Ghana.

If you want to get a quality HD product onto people's TVs and monitors, BR is the only practical option at the moment.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8904


« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2010, 03:40:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I simply don't agree here. I own a Roku, it streams Vimeo 720p content and that stuff looks amazing on my 42" Panasonic plasma.

I have to agree with Chris, in that discs of any kind are a dead end road. All content via upload and download in developed countries is now and will continue to be commonplace every day that goes by. Hulu Plus went live today, I can get that as well with the Roku. I have had HD streaming with Netflix for awhile, which I love. I don't buy DVDs, I have no interest in buying Blu-ray for anything, movies or data. I have no interest in owning movies like we did with VHS, DVDs and so on. We have entered new methods of delivery which permit watching what you want, went you want, on practically any device you want, no need to own anything with such low subscriptions. Cable TV is dead. The sooner I can dump that the better. C0MCA$T just doesn't get it, $200 a month for an American household of internet, phone, digital TV with some premium stuff is a losing game, wasted money for consumers.

Streaming is the future and that future is now. You don't need a movie to be 40GB. There are optimal compressions that maximize image quality and minimize file size for streaming, only to improve with time.


The full HD video spec is 1080p. That's much better than 720p. For anyone who wants to view the maximum HD video quality, at present the only option is Blu ray, at least in most parts of the world.

The D7000 records video at 1080p at 24fps. That's the maximum quality the camera can deliver. Preserving that maximum quality on a Blu ray disc is more convenient for handling and distribution purposes than storing hours of HD footage on an external hard drive that needs to be connected to a computer. But it's not cheaper of course, and that's a pity. I'm surprised that blank Blu ray discs are still so expensive.

I still have movies on DVD discs, sitting on my shelves, that I bought from America shortly after the new medium was released about 20 years ago. The fact that I can still pop any of those discs into my Blu ray player and watch the material, uprezzed and interpolated, on my 65" Panasonic plasma HDTV, is amazing. I don't have a single hard drive from that era that's still functioning and usable.

Because I have a fairly large plasma HD screen, I am probably more sensitive to variations in image quality, whether from a broadcast or from a disc.

My impression is, the technical  quality of standard so-called HD broadcasts in Australia is very mushy. It looks like highly compressed 1080i and 720p at best. There's no comparison to a good recording on Blu ray at 1080p, that one might get from the latest RED video camera.

When I watch a high quality Blu ray recording, I sometimes sit as close as 2 metres from the screen to appreciate the fine detail. When I watch the average mushy broadcast that passes for HD, I'm usually sitting on my ''chaise longue'' at the other end of the room.

Compression never maximises image quality. It minimises image degradation, at best. There's a difference.

Australia's not a particularly backward country. In fact we weathered the recent global financial crisis better than most countries. Yet I have friends in the city of Brisbane who don't have access to a cable broadband service (neither fibre optic nor copper). They have to rely upon a wireless broadband service which is slow at best and non-existent at worst. When many users are on the service at one time, it can slow to a crawl and even cut out completely, requiring the modem to be switched off and reset.

A typical download limit for such services is from 2-5Gb. My own broadband service is ADSL2 from a copper wire with a 12Gb limit before speed falls. I certainly wouldn't want to download 40GB movies, whether compressed or not.

Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8904


« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2010, 08:32:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

Blu-ray is a dead end tech. Demand drives down price for tech which has happened a little for BR but not enough to sell at great quantities anywhere near the DVD market. BR players are still more cost than consumers want to pay. Blank BR media costs more than consumers want to pay. The best BR players are entirely different devices as well, multi players, gaming and more.

You are in the minority with a 65" plasma (yes the largest available) and a Blu-Ray player.

Add up the total AppeTV, Roku, Boxee, Wii, PS3 and app enabled tvs all together, along with all the Android phones, iPhones, ipads and more. All of these can stream content, HD from Netflix, Amazon, Hulu. Much of this may be US based but will carry to other countries soon because it makes money. These streaming services are cheap, $8 a month vs much higher cable tv prices. People are beginning to dump cable tv services. Why be locked into a BR player when you can watch content on many devices, mobile or not.

Consumers want content now, and on whatever device. BR is simply not that desirable to the masses. It's locked to sitting in front of a TV only, whereas streaming is anywhere and anytime. Also most consumers don't care if it's 720p or 1080p. Honestly they both look great on my 42" plasma. More than good enough.

It's widely known that Sony's PlayStation 3 secured the demise of HD-DVD and the monopoly of Blu-ray. But at the same time, other tech has increased at such a fast pace that streaming became reality and only gets better. Video-philes are the market for Blu-ray, those that sit in front of big TVs with not much else to do regularly. I can take my daughter to dance and stream an HD TV show or movie, paltry 720p ;-), to an iPad while I wait. I don't care if it's 1080p, same as the overwhelming majority of consumers don't.

Verizon FiOS broadband will be upped to 150Mbps in the US next year for select areas and grow from there. Other providers will follow. Wired and wireless broadband will have more money and tech poured into them that anything BR. In a short time, years not decades, incredibly fast broadband will be the norm in most developed countries with consumer demand.  

But in all fairness, I ran across this today and I think it is a wise statement, most technology runs parallel for along time before something simply goes out of fad: link

John,
I can't really disagree with much you say. The average person who may not be an amateur photographer wouldn't even know what 720p means, and the differences between 720p and 1080i are probably insignificant.

Screen size plays a huge role here. I remember well when the HD spec was first discussed in America. Those were the days when large screen LCDs and Plasmas were not available at an affordable price. The point was made repeatedly by those arguing for the HD resolution limit to be 720p, that the advantages of 1080p would not be appreciated on a small screen without the viewer sitting far closer to the screen than most people wish to sit when viewing TV.

The 'average' person has never fully appreciated the finer points of photographic image quality. It's only people who are a little bit obsessed with image quality, like most readers of LL  and similar forums, who are concerned about such matters.

I concede the point completely that other forms of storage, other than BR, are now much more affordable. I recall that I paid about A$450 for my first WD-Passport 1TB external hard drive which fits in a shirt pocket. I recently saw them reduced to A$149, probably because they are USB 2.0 devices and USB 3.0 is the new standard. I bought a couple more.

However, even though that price is amazing for 1TB of storage, it's still not cheaper than 1TB of DVD storage, but a lot more convenient of course.

The economics of pricing seems generally rather obscure to me. I had hoped that BR would make the DVD obsolete, or a legacy medium. A blu-ray disc, dual layer on both sides, has the potential to store 200GB of data. I don't understand why every new computer sold does not come with a Blu-ray burner as standard, apart from that obvious explanation that the average consumer doesn't place much value on high picture quality.

By the way, the 65" plasma TV I bought a year ago has since dropped in value quite considerably. I could buy it today for a couple of thousand less. Perhaps the high price of large screens is inhibiting the popularity of Blu-ray.

I have to say, this large screen plasma is superb for slide shows of my images downsampled to 6MB in 8 bit, then jpeg compressed to 2-3MB. I get superb detail and resolution from a 'normal' TV viewing distance.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad