Tsutaya TV download HD to Blu-ray service tested
By Richard Lawler 
posted Dec 27th 2008 10:00AM
posted Dec 27th 2008 10:00AM
posted Dec 27th 2008 10:00AM
The amount of electronics thrown away rather than recycled in 2007.
The EPA reports that 82% of electronics disposal in 2007 ended up in the garbage (mostly landfills) rather than a recycling center. (source: EPA, July 2008)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
8.8GB? So it looks like crap? No, thanks; I'll stick with physical media.
Only slightly more bits than a DVD and only slightly less quality than Blu-ray? It's a holiday miracle!!
C'mon, blogosphere, quit calling things HD when they are clearly not.
1080p highly compressed movies is not HD. Just because it lights up the 1080p light doesn't make it HD. Only suckers and morons think they're equivalent...
Please elaborate on your feelings that 8.8GB is not enought for HD.
My DVD2iTunes rip SD DVDs at 500-700 MBs. 10+ times that seems about right for HD.
Any experience with the data file size created by ripping a BD would be helpful.
Merry Christmas!
I think those claiming 8.8Gb for 1080p24 "would look like crap" are almost certainly wrong, I've seen some extraordinary results for files much smaller than that.
But that said, there are two major dings against this service, leaving aside the high cost of BD media (though one wonders if a tiny bit more compression could be used to allow users to create BD9s instead?)
1. It appears that the audio sucks. Stereo? Seriously? What is it with download services and stereo? Two hours of full rate DTS takes up 1Gb, and 99% of the population LIKES full rate DTS, even if some claim that they cannot abide anything less than lossless 9.1. 1Gb. Seriously. You're sending at least four anyway, even if you're Apple and doing 720p, what's 1Gb between friends?
2. It's 1080i60 not 1080p24. W. T. F. Why? 1080i60 is less efficient than 1080p24, and because it's not an efficient encoding of a 24fps source, it's inherently going to introduce more artifacts. I found it bizarre that DVD never standardized upon 24p as an available framerate, but at least back then it was assumed that the DVD content would be send, decoded, almost raw to CRT TVs and need to match the CRT's expectations), but 1080i60? Geez.
Every time I hear someone's come up with a download system, they manage to introduce at least one unnecessary gotcha, on top of the issues with the lack of standardization resulting from the death of HD DVD, that was supposed to standardize all of this and make everything "just work":
1. Netflix is stereo, and doesn't allow you to buffer something allowing you to watch it in high quality regardless of Internet connection rate.
2. BB is rental only, and appears to be stereo only too.
3. AppleTV is expensive, and rental only
4. Amazon is streaming only, and STB support seems to be limited to TiVo.
5. Vudu is expensive and only allows rentals or "purchases" that end up with everything tied to the security of a single hard disk.
What's needed is for the industry to take a step back, look at what's already available for them to use, and standardize on it. HD DVD without the HD disc drive would be a start, that's a complete framework for online downloads, streaming, burning, and everything else right there.
Meh. Current online HD services suck. The only hard media format providing HD that's left sucks. It's a bad time to like HD.
So your not only paying for a Inferior 1080i Stereo Copy, but the HIGH COST of a blank Blu-Ray Disc. Plus it doesn't play in any old Blu-Ray player. It costs more, lower quality, and compatibility issues. Why even bother it's going to fail just like the same BS with DVD copy's. You might as well just buy a disc. It's cheaper and better.