• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / Technology Hall of Shame / Tech hall of shame: Blu-Ray

Tech hall of shame: Blu-Ray

December 21, 2010 JimK Leave a Comment

The picture quality is great, but the new format has come with a cornucopia of downsides. Here are a few:

  • Got off to a bad start with the format war with Toshiba. Customers hate format wars as much as manufacturers. Nobody wants to be stuck with a Betamax. Uncertainty means that wallets stay in customers’ pockets.
  • First players were buggy, sometimes turning themselves into doorstops.
  • Long start-up times are a big step backwards from DVD. It was a real drag to put your first Blu-Ray disc into your $1500 player and have it take three minutes to load. Things are better now, but the early adopters really got abused by the manufacturers unleashing the players before they were ready. Blu-Ray players still don’t start up as fast as DVDs.
  • Allows content creators to block perfectly reasonable operations, like fast forwarding through trailers. Sometimes it’ll let you fast forward through a trailer, but will start playing the next one, making you press the FF button again. This sometimes continues for five or six trailers. Flexibility given to disk authors has created impatience and anger for disc viewers.
  • No standardization of menus. This is probably a feature if you’re a studio looking to put your own stamp on the on-screen design of your product, but, if you’re a user, it’s no fun at all to try to figure out where the cursor is in a totally unfamiliar graphic scheme.
  • Won’t reliably allow you to turn off the player and automatically resume where you left off, something DVD did quite well.
  • Blu-Ray players built after January 1 or sold after the end of 2011 will convert HD content to standard definition at their component video outputs, forcing purchasers to update their ancillary equipment to HDMI. A plus for studios worried about people re-digitizing analog HD content; and a major expense for some consumers. What if you shelled out $20K for a fancy HD projector a couple of years ago, before they all got HDMI inputs? Stop upgrading your video player, or else.
  • Blu-Ray players shipped after the end of 2013 won’t allow any content that was encrypted on the disk to appear at the analog outputs, even if the program material is standard definition.
  • In current, and presumably future, Blu-Ray players, the creator of the disc can, by setting something called the ICT token, force the player to down-res component video to standard definition. So you can get a Blu-Ray movie from Netflix (paying extra for the privilege), slip it into your player, and find that your high-buck projector is looking as fuzzy as standard TV. I don’t know if any disc creator has actually implemented this option.

I said I’d wait ‘til the end to discuss common threads. I can’t wait that long on this one. Maybe there were even more excruciating customer abuses proposed and rejected, but it seems to me, looking from the outside, that every time a tradeoff had to be made between what the content providers wanted and what the customers wanted, the customers lost. Is it a coincidence that Sony is itself a content provider, having purchased CBS Records, Columbia Pictures, and part of MGM? I don’t know.

Technology Hall of Shame

← Technology hall of shame Tech hall of shame: Amazon Kindle →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.