And once again, all the roles will be played by men.;)
Do you actually know anything at all about film?
on
How the PS3 Hit $600
·
· Score: 1
People will be turned off by a film at 60fps.
Movies shot at 30fps are in general less appealing than movies shot at 24fps, because viewers are accustomed to one standard looking more classy and professional than the other. Regardless of the fact that you're technically getting more and a smoother picture in 30fps, it registers as being "worse" than 24fps does. We're used to seeing TV at 30fps, and movies at 24fps. Do the math.
When Sony released the PS2 with the DVD player, it was the right time in that technology's life cycle. DVDs were really taking off and a lot of people were looking for an affordable way to get in on the action. A $300 PS2 fit the bill with a vengeance.
Blu-ray's a little different. It has no market penetration to speak of and will have next to none when the PS3 appears. And while $300 is affordable for the average suburban consumer, $600 really is too much. HD is NOT exploding. I know exactly one person with an HDTV, while I had a couple friends with DVD players when the PS2 came out. The prices on HDTVs still aren't down far enough to where Joe Average can pick one up without too much discomfort. This technology is being foisted on us before its time and offers minimal incentive to upgrade (unlike VHS -> DVD), and the PS3 is going to be pushing a standard that not many people really give a crap about except for the same cinephiles who shelled out for laserdisc.
It's not the right time, but for what it's worth, I'd bet on HD-DVD before I'd bet on Blu-ray. A lot's in a name, and HD-DVD came out of the gate with a $500 player. But I really don't see either of these technologies taking off at all for at least a couple years.
Slashdot Mirror
And once again, all the roles will be played by men. ;)
People will be turned off by a film at 60fps.
Movies shot at 30fps are in general less appealing than movies shot at 24fps, because viewers are accustomed to one standard looking more classy and professional than the other. Regardless of the fact that you're technically getting more and a smoother picture in 30fps, it registers as being "worse" than 24fps does. We're used to seeing TV at 30fps, and movies at 24fps. Do the math.
When Sony released the PS2 with the DVD player, it was the right time in that technology's life cycle. DVDs were really taking off and a lot of people were looking for an affordable way to get in on the action. A $300 PS2 fit the bill with a vengeance.
Blu-ray's a little different. It has no market penetration to speak of and will have next to none when the PS3 appears. And while $300 is affordable for the average suburban consumer, $600 really is too much. HD is NOT exploding. I know exactly one person with an HDTV, while I had a couple friends with DVD players when the PS2 came out. The prices on HDTVs still aren't down far enough to where Joe Average can pick one up without too much discomfort. This technology is being foisted on us before its time and offers minimal incentive to upgrade (unlike VHS -> DVD), and the PS3 is going to be pushing a standard that not many people really give a crap about except for the same cinephiles who shelled out for laserdisc.
It's not the right time, but for what it's worth, I'd bet on HD-DVD before I'd bet on Blu-ray. A lot's in a name, and HD-DVD came out of the gate with a $500 player. But I really don't see either of these technologies taking off at all for at least a couple years.