| AlexRocks 08.05.2008 20:52 |
Get the point yet with Blu-Ray discs?!! Someone else is doing it after all but NOT Queen because you all are F@#%$*)@ MORONS!!! READ THE LINK D@$^# IT! link |
| Smitty 08.05.2008 22:04 |
link |
| Tero 08.05.2008 23:50 |
Yeah, I got your point about about Neil Young's archive set last year about twenty topics ago, there's no reason to repeat it. Did you get my point last time that the pisspoor Queen management doesn't want to release anything from their archives, regardless of what formats there are available? |
| Darren1977 09.05.2008 09:48 |
Exactly TERO.Enough said Alex unless Mr. Brooks would care to add to this. |
| Negative Creep 09.05.2008 11:50 |
It is indeed obvious that there is no intention to release anything from the bands archives - they won't even release the fucking poxy BBC recordings. They have refused to release ANYTHING that would be of any interest to their MASSIVE hardcore fan base. They think releasing a singles collection is extremely interesting, when it will only (possibly) feature a handful of versions of songs that were only available on vinyl. It will sell poorly and will probably be used to reason why they aren't releasing any more bosets. But what is their motivation for them to keep insinuating that they're going to release mamoth boxsets? Are they just trying to keep fans interested in the band with this bullshit talk? |
| gnomo 09.05.2008 11:58 |
Negative Creep wrote: They have refused to release ANYTHING that would be of any interest to their MASSIVE hardcore fan base.... their hardcore fan base is anything but "MASSIVE" ... |
| AlexRocks 09.05.2008 12:45 |
The point is that if Queen want to release a Blu-Ray disc in a box set down the road they STILL CAN but in the meantime hopefully the industry will be doing what Neil Young is and that is releasing loads of things from the archives on each l.p. on their own Blu-Ray disc! Now's the opportunity for the entire industry to do this! Shoot they could put the entire 10 c.d. singles box set on ONE Blu-Ray disc AND have 5.1 for it. Obviously it would still cost as much as a 10 c.d. set but that wouldn't matter as it would be so much better to have so fewer discs! They could still also do it in a box like the Freddie Mercury "Solo Collection" released in the year 2000. |
| mooghead 09.05.2008 12:51 |
One small scratch and your whole collection is fucked |
| Negative Creep 09.05.2008 13:16 |
gnomo wrote:Nonsense.Negative Creep wrote: They have refused to release ANYTHING that would be of any interest to their MASSIVE hardcore fan base.... their hardcore fan base is anything but "MASSIVE" ... |
| Darren1977 09.05.2008 13:36 |
Queen do not give a fuck about the fans especially the long term ones.I am sick of all these pointless re-issues: Queen Japanese mini-vinyls,Platinum Collection,Live at the Bowl with Live Aid tacked on disc 2.i bought the 4 disc live aid box set soley for this performance. Queen Rocks only had 1 new song and a remix of I Can't Live With You on it. Fair enough we got the very good Video Hits 1 and 2 on DVD and the Freddie box set. The band have enough money at this stage of their lives why can't they give something back as Alex says, the blu-ray concept is a great idea, to release the album again but with additional content:they could include the promo videos of the singles, making of documentaries, demoes etc. They could include them in one massive box set or have them released individually to give people a choice of which albums they wanted. I dunno really what their fucking problem is, but they can fuck off with their so called album and tour, i won't be going to it,"Cosmos Rocks" indeed, "Cashcow Rocks" is more like it! |
| Champipple 09.05.2008 15:04 |
I don't give a crap about Blu-Ray. Disc based media is on it's way out. In <5 years everything will be downloads and/or solid-state RAM. The jump from VHS to DVD was way bigger than the jump from DVD to Blu-Ray. I honestly think it's not going to succeed as a media. HD-DVD dying was not good news for Blu-Ray, it's a rejection of the idea of disc-based movie technology. Playstation 3 is saving Blu-Ray's ass right now, without counting those sales as "player sales", Blu-Ray would already be dead. Why would I want to buy the band's back catalogue again anyway? |
| Champipple 09.05.2008 15:22 |
To back up my point with numbers. Transformers DVD sold over 13 million units on it's own. Blu-Ray discs are forcasted at 15 million units this year, all titles combined. Yes. The price of the discs will drop and people will start buying more, but I really don't see Blu-Ray as becoming the "people's choice" like VHS and DVD. |
| AlexRocks 09.05.2008 16:41 |
Mooghead these new discs are highly scratch resistant. Please read about it at Blu-Ray.com Other than that yes digital downloads are the future but a physical format will be needed as well in order to back up everything. A physical format will be needed as well since digital downloads do not provide the best sound quality as possible. Would it bother you all in the slightest if everything stored in your computer were lost when it crashes? All machines break at some point. The reason HD-D.V.D. failed was not because people are not intereseted in a physical format. It failed because since day one it was an inferior technology to Blu-Ray sold STRICTLY to take advantage of the public's ignorance and was publiced day in and out with lies. In terms of the sales of Blu-Ray over all they are much better than when d.v.d. started as a new format. Obviously everyone are not going to convert automatically. You all need to realise the the music industry is just that. An industry. If you can't compete then you will loose your business. It does not matter what I think or the fans (at least individually) or more specific the public. I am pointing out what is going on in the industry and I think it is EXTREAMLY exciting. This looks like something that will allow Queen to open up their archives significantly over the next few years... ...oh yes. About the course language in my first post...I should not have been so explicit and freaked out so much...sorry. I think I'll edit it shortly. |
| Negative Creep 09.05.2008 17:48 |
AlexRocks wrote: This looks like something that will allow Queen to open up their archives significantly over the next few years...Erm.... not if QPL have no interest or desire to release anything from said archive. Anyway - I don't see bluray as being a medium for music. How would that work? You'd have to transfer the files from the disc to your hard drive, then on to a CD to be able to listen to them. CD isn't going anywhere in a hurry (tests have proven that higher bitrates for music make no difference to humans), and legal downloads are only a fraction of the market. |
| Yara 09.05.2008 18:47 |
DARREN1977 wrote: Queen do not give a fuck about the fans especially the long term ones... Fair enough we got the very good Video Hits 1 and 2 on DVD and the Freddie box set. ... I dunno really what their fucking problem is, but they can fuck off with their so called album and tour, i won't be going to it,"Cosmos Rocks" indeed, "Cashcow Rocks" is more like it!I think it's time for Queen to appeal to younger audiences and to new fans, really. The re-issues, with better sound and info, are a way to do it - and, believe me, if you want to appeal to new audiences, releasing the concert at MK and the one in Montrel, 1981-1982, in very good sound and image quality, Blu-ray, DTS and so on, was the right way to do it: Queen never sounded more impressive. They were at the peak of their form as a band and both concerts are stunning for the absolutely incredible performance of the band. More impressive doesn't mean better: of course there are a lot of fans who would prefer the 70's stuff, but bear in mind that the sheer power of Queen's sound comes to its full potential around 1981-1982, and the MK and RM DVDS (now Rock Montreal with Live aid in Blu-Ray) are the way to go. Nothing more impressive for new fans who have been brought up accostumed with another kind of technology. Doing the Musical, releasing the NEW ALBUM, which is the most important, appealing to a new audience is a way of spurring the interest for Queen's earlier stuff. Queen is still alive and playing. They have a potential new audience to appeal to. I'm part of this audience: ME. lol I still wanna go to a Queen concert, I wanna see Paul Rodgers too, for sure, I want to listen to their new songs, I still haven't had enough of Montreal 81 and Milton Keynes, I love their performance in Live Aid, the Greatest Hits are amazing, I mean, it takes some time to really enjoy all this material. And, frankly, Queen never did any effort, as far as I know, to shut down this website - long term fans get pretty much what they want here, there's a lot of stuff, it takes a whole life to listen to and enjoy it all. So no one's losing, I guess. Queen fans don't have so much to complain about. I'm a die-hard Stones and Beatles fan. I can't, I'm serious, I can't deal with all the stuff that has been released. It's too much. I mean, the Stones, I was still enjoying the whatever live CD or DVD they released 10 years ago and there are tons of new stuff, and singles, and live concerts, and documentaries, and all you could ask for: I can't follow it. So, how it all worked for me? Obviouslly, I started to become a fan of the new Rolling Stones - the Rolling Stones of the boxset with the new live concerts AND the new songs in DTS and so on. I watch that video recorded in Hyde Park - official release -, I mean, it's musically interesting, but absolutely unappealing. Appeal zero. Music? Great. Appeal? Zero. The new stuff is more exciting, frankly. For sure, Queen is going to release the earlier stuff, probably this year there will be another release in excellent quality, with commentary of the guys of the band, and new fans like me will get stunned: wow, this is how Queen sounded like in, I don't know, 79? I mean, I think they will take advantage of the technology. But they have been building a new fan base too and that should not be disregarded. It'd be awkward to release a huge box as if it were the band's last statement. They will be going to release a boxset and, believe me, just like happened to the Stones, a lot of people who will enjoy it will be youngsters like myself who have been introduced to the bands by the earlier generations of friends, parents, or through the internet. OLD FAN, you have already WATCHED MERCURY SINGING LIVE IN YOUR FACE. lol So, sit back, relax, download your favorite 70's stuff here, watch it, have a good time and, don't forget, many of you had the pleasure |
| Daniel Nester 09.05.2008 20:25 |
The players are very expensive. |
| Yara 09.05.2008 20:59 |
Daniel Nester wrote: The players are very expensive.Many people who earn the minimum wage in Brazil (!), which is really...a low salary, have DVDs and modest home-theaters. They'd rather watch the DVD of Queen's concert at MK or the newly remastered DVD Rock Montreal with Live Aid than the Houston gig, 77, the image of which can't be improved that much. Neither the sound. And though the show was great, Queen sounds more impressive to people in their later years, 1981-1982, mainly, and also 1985-1986. Eventually, they'll release the earlier material when people take an interest in the band: youngsters, new fans, or even people who hadn't access to their music in good quality and now, thanks to the advances made in technology, can, at a much lower cost! Blu-Ray players will get cheaper over time, just like DVD players. The rest of what I think is in the earlier post, and I won't write it again because there were good, well intentioned people who already complained to me about the length of my posts, and that I should be more brief, it's true. Hahaha. So I stop here! |
| PieterMC 09.05.2008 21:43 |
Daniel Nester wrote: The players are very expensive.True, but they are dropping in price. DVD players used to be very expensive too. I think that by the end of the year you will see Blu-ray players drop in price considerably. Personally after watching movies on Blu-Ray I just won't buy any movies on DVD again. |
| PieterMC 09.05.2008 21:49 |
Champipple wrote: I don't give a crap about Blu-Ray. Disc based media is on it's way out. In <5 years everything will be downloads and/or solid-state RAM.I'll believe that when I see it. It may happen, but not in 5 years. Downloads only appear to a small vocal group at the moment. The ability to download a HD movie in full 1080p with uncompressed audio is not even close to being realized. Downloads of that size will simply choke ISPs at the moment. Blu-Ray discs hold up to 50Gb of data. Do you have any idea how long that would take to download? Nevermind how much disc space you would need to hold all those movies. Heck 20 movies could potentially use 1TB of space. I personally have no interest in downloading movies. For one thing I can't resell a download once I grow tired of it. |
| Serry... 10.05.2008 02:29 |
DARREN1977 wrote: Live at the Bowl with Live Aid tacked on disc 2.i bought the 4 disc live aid box set soley for this performance.You probably have very special edition of Live at the Bowl, since we have interviews and snippets from Japan concert on disc 2. |
| Darren1977 10.05.2008 03:51 |
Serry, you are correct lol, i got a bit carried away! |
| Adam Baboolal 10.05.2008 06:56 |
Let's get things straight: AlexRocks = Fact wise - bluray was the inferior format when compared to HD-DVD, tech-wise. It had many features that BluRay didn't have early on. And HD-DVD lost out because studio support drifted to BluRay. The two formats had practically the same picture and sound output. I'm not going to argue with a Bluray supporter, but facts are facts. Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien! Yara, you speak sense! Loved that big post cause it really puts things into perspective. Adam. |
| mooghead 10.05.2008 07:44 |
You ARE Alexkx or whatever from that other forum. |
| AlexRocks 10.05.2008 11:24 |
Blu-Ray was NOT inferrior to HD-DVD specifically because of its storage capapbilities which was the whole point since day one and why it won the format war. You have been misinformed by the lies propogated by the media which usually originated from Microsoft. The whole point with Blu-Ray beyond that is that over time they will be able to increase the storage capablities far more than HD-DVD ever could. Again Blu-Ray has an incredible scratch resistance to it unlike HD-DVD. Why do you think Blu-Ray won the format war? Because people are mean? I'm afraid that's not how reality works. |
| Tero 10.05.2008 12:52 |
Listen to me Alex... I want you to stop all this continued talk about bluray. Not because I personally can't stand you repeating it over and over again like a broken record, but because you might actually convince Brian (the obsessive freak he is). The Queen back catalogue will benefit ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Bluray. The albums? They've had a million opportunities to release them as individual cd/dvd combinations as well as different box sets. It hasn't happened because QP doesn't want it to happen, and no new format is going to change that. The rarities? Again, there's already been a chance to release them if QP were interested in the slightest, and a new format isn't going to change that. The concerts? The ones filmed in the 70's are not going to look or sound any better than a dvd version would, no matter how many gigabytes of discs space you will get. Brian has already decided not to release any footage that isn't up to "dvd standards", so what do you think is going to happen with bluray? Let's just recap what Queen items we're going to get with bluray: New versions of the albums? - No New anniversaty edition of ANATO? - Yes New concerts? - No Re-release of WWRY concert? - Yes Box sets? - No Archive material? - No I'm sorry, but bluray is the ABSOLUTELY LAST thing I want Brian to get excited about! |
| PieterMC 10.05.2008 13:41 |
AlexRocks wrote: Blu-Ray was NOT inferrior to HD-DVD specifically because of its storage capapbilities which was the whole point since day one and why it won the format war. You have been misinformed by the lies propogated by the media which usually originated from Microsoft. The whole point with Blu-Ray beyond that is that over time they will be able to increase the storage capablities far more than HD-DVD ever could. Again Blu-Ray has an incredible scratch resistance to it unlike HD-DVD. Why do you think Blu-Ray won the format war? Because people are mean? I'm afraid that's not how reality works.Although I love Blu-ray I don't really think these are the reasons that Blu-ray won. If Queen were ever to release their rarities set on Blu-Ray I believe that it would also be available on another format too (CD). There is no way that they would ever release it on just Blu-Ray. I would imagine any possible release on Blu-Ray would be in addition to a CD set, certainly not the only format. What Neil Young is doing it great, but realistically at the present time it's not going to appeal to everybody. |
| inu-liger 11.05.2008 01:02 |
PieterMC wrote:Likewise.Daniel Nester wrote: The players are very expensive.True, but they are dropping in price. DVD players used to be very expensive too. I think that by the end of the year you will see Blu-ray players drop in price considerably. Personally after watching movies on Blu-Ray I just won't buy any movies on DVD again. The only exception I made in the last year to buying a movie or concert release on DVD that I KNEW was already available on or going to be for Blu-ray, was "Queen Rocks Montreal". |
| inu-liger 11.05.2008 01:20 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Let's get things straight: AlexRocks = Fact wise - bluray was the inferior format when compared to HD-DVD, tech-wise. It had many features that BluRay didn't have early on. And HD-DVD lost out because studio support drifted to BluRay. The two formats had practically the same picture and sound output. I'm not going to argue with a Bluray supporter, but facts are facts.This totally conflicts with your following sentence, since Blu-ray DOES have higher bitrates for video AND audio, even combined, than HD DVD ever permitted. Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!You must be. HD DVD's had the more negative reviews for PQ and also AQ. I really can't see how you can consider that making it superior to BD. Also, nobody really gave a shit about iHD, or even BD-Java for that matter. That was never the main selling point of either format. Microsoft made sure though to have their online spin doctors make fun of BD for implementing those features later on to make it look the inferior, which obviously worked with certain people like you. Sure Java is more complicated for developers, but who do you think charged the more money for their technology? *cough* M$ *cough* There was a reason that most of the major studios were supporting Blu-ray from the start, even Paramount despite their temporary HD DVD exclusitivity which they admitted was resulting from a deal with Toshiba where they (Toshiba) compensated them "very well" to drop Blu-ray. Yet Paramount didn't even destroy their Blu-ray discs as part of that, cos they've already reshipped them to stores, or will be finished doing that by the end of this month in addition to releasing new titles. Blu-ray had the superior advantage of higher bitrates for video and better audio support (HD DVD never supported PCM 5.1, have you noticed?), and to say they all should have gone with HD DVD is like saying that we all agree it's ok to compromise quality in exchange for *supposedly* cheaper pricing (HD DVD discs never had a huge price difference, especially here in Canada...they were always the same as Blu-ray, so now everyone realizes that was bullshit), and it is also much like how it would be OK in that sense to drop FLAC and support MP3 only. It just doesn't work that way in the end. |
| Negative Creep 11.05.2008 15:00 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!There was a study in the U.S where the result was that that DVD-A and SACD were essentially pointless as they were audibly no better than CD. Technically better yes, but the human ear cannot tell the difference - CD is as good as needed. |
| Adam Baboolal 11.05.2008 20:28 |
Negative Creep wrote:Sorry, but whoever they are, "they're talkin from here!" Thanks Fred ;)Adam Baboolal wrote: Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!There was a study in the U.S where the result was that that DVD-A and SACD were essentially pointless as they were audibly no better than CD. Technically better yes, but the human ear cannot tell the difference - CD is as good as needed. Even old Brian can hear the difference when he remarked that the DVD-A's of Queen's material sounded more like Vinyl than cd's. I can also personally vouch for higher bitrates because I record at high rates all the time now. I used to record at 24/44 but when I switched to 24/96, the detail in the sound was incredible. I haven't looked back since. So hey, don't believe these studies all the time. Ask people who live and breathe this stuff, day in, day out. They're the ones who will truly know. The only way I could describe it is this... I recorded rain and cars on my street. Listening back to a 24/44 recording, it was nice. But after trying out 24/96, it was my perception that the sound felt more real. One time I had my window open and had left the recording on playback. I actually thought I was listening to cars whizzing by my window! As for all this bluray talk, I don't care. I don't have a PS3 and I like my dvd's fine. I ain't gettin into this any further. Adam. |
| inu-liger 11.05.2008 21:22 |
Adam Baboolal wrote:My bandmate Josh, who does quite a bit of our recordings and mixing, initially didn't believe me that 96/24 recording was worthwhile doing, back in 2005/2006, because he felt it was a waste of computer space. However when we DID start recording the old demos then, he did note even then that it made quite a difference, even when mixing and downsampling to 44.1/16. So I will agree with the "they're talking from here" quip :)Negative Creep wrote:Sorry, but whoever they are, "they're talkin from here!" Thanks Fred ;) Even old Brian can hear the difference when he remarked that the DVD-A's of Queen's material sounded more like Vinyl than cd's. I can also personally vouch for higher bitrates because I record at high rates all the time now. I used to record at 24/44 but when I switched to 24/96, the detail in the sound was incredible. I haven't looked back since. So hey, don't believe these studies all the time. Ask people who live and breathe this stuff, day in, day out. They're the ones who will truly know. The only way I could describe it is this... I recorded rain and cars on my street. Listening back to a 24/44 recording, it was nice. But after trying out 24/96, it was my perception that the sound felt more real. One time I had my window open and had left the recording on playback. I actually thought I was listening to cars whizzing by my window!Adam Baboolal wrote: Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!There was a study in the U.S where the result was that that DVD-A and SACD were essentially pointless as they were audibly no better than CD. Technically better yes, but the human ear cannot tell the difference - CD is as good as needed. As for all this bluray talk, I don't care. I don't have a PS3 and I like my dvd's fine. I ain't gettin into this any further. Adam.Perhaps it's time to go visit your nearest Home Theatre specialty shop ;) Or perhaps Woolsworth? Once you experience HD, you never want to go back. Or perhaps that is what you are fearing, for knowing how much your wallet will be hurting then :) |
| Adam Baboolal 11.05.2008 21:29 |
I have a video business with two Sony HD cameras. I know how good it can look through my HD tv. I'm just not as fussed with films to spend the money on a whole new setup when it's still new technology that is still coming down in price. Adam. |
| inu-liger 12.05.2008 23:55 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: I have a video business with two Sony HD cameras. I know how good it can look through my HD tv. I'm just not as fussed with films to spend the money on a whole new setup when it's still new technology that is still coming down in price. Adam.Yet you shirley must have gotten into DVD's when that was (and still is) happening, when transitioning from VHS to that ;) DVD's weren't exactly much cheaper to begin with when they first came out. Blu-ray media and hardware is dropping in price at a much faster pace in nearly less than two years than DVD ever did in it's first few (3+) years. I really can't make sense about how you wouldn't embrace this technology. I can seemingly agree with you on many other things *but*. Which is a shame really, cos you ARE a very brilliant person. |
| Adam Baboolal 13.05.2008 07:52 |
inu-liger wrote:Thankyou for that last part, it's very flattering. I don't consider myself brilliant though!Adam Baboolal wrote: I have a video business with two Sony HD cameras. I know how good it can look through my HD tv. I'm just not as fussed with films to spend the money on a whole new setup when it's still new technology that is still coming down in price. Adam.Yet you shirley must have gotten into DVD's when that was (and still is) happening, when transitioning from VHS to that ;) DVD's weren't exactly much cheaper to begin with when they first came out. Blu-ray media and hardware is dropping in price at a much faster pace in nearly less than two years than DVD ever did in it's first few (3+) years. I really can't make sense about how you wouldn't embrace this technology. I can seemingly agree with you on many other things *but*. Which is a shame really, cos you ARE a very brilliant person. Now, embracing this stuff... It's simple, I don't need to have that new format. I mentioned to my business partner that we could use our HD footage to create bluray in the future but he basically said why bother, and to be honest, I see his point. Sure it looks nice, but the costs are just too high right now. And how many people will ask specifically for that right now? Not many. Inu, you have to realise that some people don't want to or even can embrace every technology under the sun. Some of us will keep a critical eye on something and watch its further development before looking at it more closely. And with that, I don't want to know anymore than I do about "the great" BR. Oh and don't call me Shirley... :) Adam. |
| PieterMC 13.05.2008 08:17 |
As much as I love Blu-Ray the only reason I have it is because I bought a PS3. The standalone players are still expensive, but I have heard rumours that there will be Chinese noname players available this year. That should drive down the cost some. |
| inu-liger 13.05.2008 13:11 |
PieterMC wrote: As much as I love Blu-Ray the only reason I have it is because I bought a PS3. The standalone players are still expensive, but I have heard rumours that there will be Chinese noname players available this year. That should drive down the cost some.Treat that as just only a rumour. Sony reps said very explicitly earlier this year that they will NOT licence the BD/AACS techology to any Chinese companies (and no, it has nothing to do with the Olympics ;) ), for fear of commodized players killing the market all over again a la DVD. At the same time, I think they said that by year's end, they expect players to drop as low as $299 or so by Xmas (or was it $250?), followed by further expected drops in 2009. Btw the PS3 is a fabulous machine :D |
| TheAmazingEvent 25.05.2008 16:16 |
the reason HD DVD was favoured was it could be made in existing DVD plants without retooling, cheaper read laser and the protection layer was 0.6mm. BluRay has a protective layer of 0.1mm and cost more to produce because retooling and the protective layer. Performance wise there is little difference except BR has greater storage capacity. TBH i don't care, just wish Queen would stop arseing around rerealease all the VHS on DVD or BR ASAP and then some new stuff with freddie. |
| Deacon Fan 25.05.2008 17:36 |
I'll go Blu-ray when a stand-alone recorder is available at a reasonable price. Now that I have HDTV, it's very disappointing watching recorded suff in standard when I can't be there live.. I realize there are Tivos and such which will record HD, but I like to have a genuine disc to play back, plus I refuse to pay monthly fees. Now if the DRM built into HDTV makes it impossible to save stuff on Blu-ray anyway, then to hell with all of it. Oh, and the other thing I am waiting for is the storage capacity to be exploited, rather than simply quality. I want to see an entire standard def TV season on 1 BD for example... |
| KevoM 30.05.2008 07:45 |
Deacon Fan wrote: Oh, and the other thing I am waiting for is the storage capacity to be exploited, rather than simply quality. I want to see an entire standard def TV season on 1 BD for example...As much as I agree with you I can't see it happening as they wouldn't be able to justify their bloated prices currently with TV Boxsets which have multiple discs and big packaging as opposed to a single packaged disc, which would HAVE to be cheaper. Also, there are fans who prefer the big TV boxset packaging and multiple discs and probably would understand the concept of SD material on a BD. |
| AlexRocks 30.05.2008 10:05 |
Of course film and music releases would be able to charge more for the amount of content and running time! Why is this so confusing? You are not charged exuberent prices for how many discs something is but for how many hours of content. I also see NO reason why big box sets could not still be done depending on the significance of the project. The bigger longer running ones that would normally be boxsets could still get that type of packaging. If the public are so stupid that they think they will get a whole t.v. series for a cheaper price just because it is on fewer discs or one disc then there's obviously something the hell wrong with them. |
| Wilki Amieva 30.05.2008 10:43 |
I know most people won't tell the difference between a recording at 192 kHz and the same recording (well) downsampled to 44.1 kHz, but surely most of us can tell if the dynamic range, I mean the bit depth, is what goes down. ...Or am I an alien too? |
