http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/ Engadget Comments for Engadget HD Podcast 124 - 02.25.2009 http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
Ok I get why Media Center PC. Guess I dont need it though, only one TV. Never used a Tivo before so I guess thats why I like the Directv DVR.]]>Feb 25th 2009 5:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
Also, Ben I thought you didn't think Netflix was going to raise subscription fees?

]]>Feb 25th 2009 8:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
Not only is Hulu not going to partner with Roku (and not only is such a partnership not why Boxee was pressured into taking Hulu off), but Hulu is not going to allow Roku, Microsoft, TiVo, or anyone else who makes streaming STBs to stream their content either. They can't. They've been told that if they allow it, the content owners - the people who supply their content and provide a license to allow it to be viewed - will take their ball home.

If Hulu does appear on Roku in the long term, it'll not be at Boxee's expense, it'll be because someone at Hulu has convinced the content providers that they're a big bunch of idiots.]]>Feb 26th 2009 10:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
Also what up with recommending Steve to rent the DVD of Firefly when the Blu-ray is out Ben "I make the Blu-ray release list" Drawbaugh.

Just giving you a hard time Ben

The show is awesome and keep up the good work. ]]>Feb 26th 2009 6:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
A better idea, lower the MSRP of the Blu-ray discs, and forget about adding in DVD, or a mostly-useless digital copy and charging more.

Why?

Because at $35 or $40 msrp, I'll replace a few of my current library with upgrades to Blu-ray. Perhaps 50 discs. But not my whole library. And I'll buy select new releases, but not everything that tickles my interest.

But if Blu-ray is at MSRP $20 or $25, I'll probably replace all 1000+ DVDs that I have, with Blu-ray. And I'll probably pick up lots of new releases, sight unseen, if I have an interest.

Under which scenario does the industry make more money? Obviously, selling 20 times as many discs, even if they are at half the MSRP, is far more lucrative.]]>Feb 26th 2009 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/Feb 26th 2009 12:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
The real problem with the FCC note is that while the port must be enabled upon request it doesn't say what content. Another line says locals can not be encrypted so we can get them with QAM or 1394. But the cable networks are hit and miss. Some people can get everything others nothing.

Oh, Ben i thought it was funny when you laughed about DVD have black bars on top and bottom. But then told us Blu Ray does the same thing. So, if one day our TV's get wider were going to see the same crap. I dont get why they cant encode them in native aspect then let the player lay on black bars as needed.

~Mitchell ]]>Feb 26th 2009 12:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
The camera aperature in 35mm is cut out to it's full height with very narrow frame lines and thus when presented as shot the film would be 2.35. Normal 35mm flat format has a wide frame line and thus the image is 1.37. The film is just matted to provide a 1.85 image for theatres and without the matte it would be 1.33 for television (but might include mic booms or lights or flags in the picture.

What had happened with Cinemascope (which was originally 2.55 before they added back the optical sound track in 1955) was that the wide frame line which hid the negative splices was gone and if you watch a Cinemascope film with a 2.35 matte in a theatre you can see the negative splices on each scene (a small white line for a 24th of a second at the top and bottom of the screen). Thus the SMPTE decided to change the standrd to 2.39 which was only a change to the projector matte to make sure that the splice lines were covered in projection. Finally they decided to "round it off" and the standard became 2.4.

This is really all academic since every theatre has a matte filed out for the specific projector, screen size and angle of projection. Just take a tape measure to a bunch of theatres and you'll find very few that have a true 2.4 for Scope of 1.85 for flat projection.

There are other formats for other film sizes and production techniques. 70mm flat has an aspect ratio of 2.2, SuperTechnorama is 2.7, Cinerama in three strip format was around 3 somthing but hard to determine because of the deep curvature of the screen. Techniscope which was a two perf pull down negative was optically printed to 35mm and thus could be 2.35 without the splice lines and Super35 is shot flat and then optically printed to a 2x squeeze so again 2.35 would project without the splice lines.

More than you ever wanted ....

John]]>Feb 26th 2009 2:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
Ben, do you think it is time to apologize to Ryan for saying he was out of his mind regarding the future of plasma?

He predicted, back in January, that Pioneer would be getting out of plasma (not just farming it out) and he was right. He said it would be reduced to a niche market, with LCD coming to dominate, and he was right.

At the time, you said he was just nuts, and it turns out he saw very clearly around the corner.

About to time eat some crow on this one, no?]]>Feb 26th 2009 2:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/1. If we project out and say someday almost all Netflix users will for the most part be streaming only, then having an all you can eat streaming plan for $8.99 (current price of the 1 DVD + unlimited streaming plan) doesn't make much sense b/c there’s no need for multiply tiers and more expensive plans. I highly doubt Netflix wants all its customers paying more than $8.99 currently to drop down to paying less. If we assume multiple tiers will exist, then either the cheaper ones will be limited by time per month or what content they have access at. In either case, an $8.99 streaming only plan won't be able to stream an unlimited amount of everything including the newer movies.
2. Currently new releases in HD on Apple and Vudu cost between 3.99 and 4.99 a pop. I assume a good portion of that money is going to the movie studios. So let's say movie studios are getting about $3 for each HD new release rental. $8.99 for unlimited will never make sense if Netflix wants to include new releases. Even if people don't go too hog wild, let’s say they watch 2 movies a week, which comes out to about 8 in a month. Even if you could convince the studios to drop down to getting only $1 a rental, that still puts the cost at $8 leaving only .99 for netflix to make up the rest of their costs and make a profit. It doesn't add up. Either the streaming plans are going to have to get more expansive if they’re going to include new releases and remain unlimited or there’s going to have to be a per movie premium of a buck or two charged for new release or some kind of multiple tier streaming plans...]]>Feb 26th 2009 3:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/Can we say Bootleg!!!.
Soon you'll seeing people selling bluray's on the street for 3 for $10.

Ah yes, China, bootleg capital of the world.

]]>Feb 26th 2009 4:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
Is there some technical barrier to this?]]>Feb 27th 2009 11:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
As a college student, I hardly ever watch live TV. The majority of the content I consume is either through streaming websites or through podcasts. I'm not in the minority, either. I've seen both Hulu and ABC.com explode in terms of popularity here.

The reason why is that many college students don't have a cable TV subscription, don't have a decent DVR or Media Center, and don't have the schedules required to sit in front of the tube at the designated time. The TV we do watch is on ancient sets that someone else no longer wanted. (I own an old Sony CRT myself). Also, consider that Hulu can be accessed anywhere in the US for free, and a healthy majority of college students carry laptops.

In addition, DTV broadcasting here sucks, and the few stations that do broadcast digitally don't bother with HD. Make no mistake, like you, I love HD, and I enjoy watching HDTV on the lovely DLP my family has at home. But people like you and I are in the minority. To be honest, HD seems like something nice to many folks, but not something they'd go out of their way to get. Also, considering that it can be really painful and expensive to get HD working right compared to just streaming the content over the web, and it's pretty much sealed for most people in my generation. Like you said, many people just aren't willing to put in the time to put together a decent Media Center system.

But most importantly, my generation was the one that grew up on YouTube, AIM, Facebook, Myspace, and Livejournal. These are all keyboard driven services with lots and lots of menus and pages. Wouldn't it make sense that we'd use Hulu so extensively?

I've been listening to all the podcasts in the Engadget family for a few months now, and they're a big part of my week--I'm a huge fan of all of you. I just wanted to explain the popularity of Hulu to you, because you were saying you didn't get it.]]>Feb 28th 2009 10:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
On the next podcast, can you guys talk about this? Give a little background (if you know), has anyone used it, tested it, etc... all the details.

Personally, at that price, I still will stick with Media Center.]]>Mar 7th 2009 11:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of

Hope this hasn't been posted already.]]>Mar 4th 2009 2:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/Right....]]>Mar 6th 2009 12:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/25/engadget-hd-podcast-124-02-25-2009/
If I am not mistaken, doesn't TWC also do the same thing? Comcast may be a halfway decent cap, but there are others that are a hell of a lot smaller.

These online content providers will need to kick the cable providers in the ass as you have 2 forces that are opposing one another.
One wants to limit (because they blame it on those who pirate movies) how much you can download, while the rest of the entertainment providers wants to transition to a download business module.

I just don't see how its going to work out for us customers. Looks like we are screwed either way.

Keith ]]>Mar 4th 2009 11:01AM