I'm not sure a "rule" based on that presumption is valid. If it were a fixed consumption market maybe you could draw a conclusion like that, but from all evidence the gaming market is still growing. The greatest strength that the PS line has is its franchise, one that PS3 continues even while the PS2 is still beating the Xb360 in unit volume.

I'm not going to try to predict any hard outcomes because there are lots of things that could alter the equation beyond the current circumstances. MS could choose to add a model with a built-in HD-DVD drive & HDMI or both Sony and MS could alter the pricing to accelerate sales rates.

I will predict this though. I think Hollywood will start marketing to the "installed" base of BD players in the PS3. To pass on that many known potential customers would be foolish on a grand scale... :)

Who knows.. ;)

b2b

just curious, what percentage of that "installed base" are capable, forget willing, to buy a rather pricey bd disc; presuming of course that the installed base is predominantly people interested in gaming?

i asked a couple of my nephews what they would spend their money on and they resoundingly said games...i asked what if mom/dad offered to spring for a movie or a game, they again resoundingly said a game...i asked why, they said a movie only lasts 1-1/2 to 3 hrs ...games are orders of magnitude more enjoyment time...go figure, gamers! ;)

[EDIT: darn, i promised myself i would stay out of this thread...i'll stick to it for the most part...i have enough grief arguing with my wife daily...]

My advocacy preceded my purchase.

But I've not pronounced any judgement on which format is going to be better long-term just on what's happened so far. Can you say that about the HD-DVD boosters here?

We will be better off in the long term with just one format, even if that format is HD-DVD (even though the odds are against it). I can live with HD-DVD winning and my having to discard any Blu-Ray movies I've accumulated by the time HD-DVD wins. Can the HD-DVD boosters say the same?

My advocacy preceded my purchase.

But I've not pronounced any judgement on which format is going to be better long-term just on what's happened so far. Can you say that about the HD-DVD boosters here?

We will be better off in the long term with just one format, even if that format is HD-DVD (even though the odds are against it). I can live with HD-DVD winning and my having to discard any Blu-Ray movies I've accumulated by the time HD-DVD wins. Can the HD-DVD boosters say the same?

As far as I'm concerned....

As a dual format owner I would prefer one format to win (either format even though I prefer HD) over the other even at the loss of my investment in player and movies. Knowing my luck though having invested thousands in both format players and movies both formats will die in the future

just curious, what percentage of that "installed base" are capable, forget willing, to buy a rather pricey bd disc; presuming of course that the installed base is predominantly people interested in gaming?

i asked a couple of my nephews what they would spend their money on and they resoundingly said games...i asked what if mom/dad offered to spring for a movie or a game, they again resoundingly said a game...i asked why, they said a movie only lasts 1-1/2 to 3 hrs ...games are orders of magnitude more enjoyment time...go figure, gamers! ;)

[EDIT: darn, i promised myself i would stay out of this thread...i'll stick to it for the most part...i have enough grief arguing with my wife daily...]

Well I will just quote myself ... ;)
I will predict this though. I think Hollywood will start marketing to the "installed" base of BD players in the PS3. To pass on that many known potential customers would be foolish on a grand scale...

Who knows.. ;)

That's the big question. "Who Knows ??" You have a "defined" set of consumers all having a device with a "known" capability that you can market to. What the result of that marketing will be is the great unknown.

My only suggestion is that not targeting that base would be foolish to pass up.

Maybe mom/dad will buy the BD movie and commander the PS3 out of the clutches of the gamers for a few hours of their own enjoyment (they're the ones footing the bill right ?) :D

b2b

No doubt. I agree. However, I don't expect all the new features to work -- ones that weren't supported when I bought the player -- but expect gracious behavior from the player. That is, new features should not break the features that are supported. One such important feature is "play the damn movie". I expect that to work.

Since these players are highly programmable, I may be pleasantly surprised if new features are also usable in these players, but that would be a wish. Little stale, but I wanted to chime in on this point.

I understand that my 1st gen product may not in the future take advantage of everything the format may deliver, but I also expect that they new software will not break the player. It too think its fair that the new stuff may not be fully supported on my old machine, but the basic function should always work.

Advanced options that didn't exist when I bought the player should be gracious. They should politely inform me that they are not supported with my player but then then should turn invisible and let me use the legacy functions unmolested.

If a piece of software won't run at all on my system, I expect to be informed before I buy it. At least in its basic functionality.

"I opine that there's eveidence thus far that the defendant likely did it."

-or-

"Guilty."


Nonetheless.... rather then getting too far disctracted regarding semantics, the crux of what I'm trying to do is express my displeasure about some issue regarding the format. I don't like what the BD format and it's backers have done with profiles (amongst other things), and I think that's good reason to make an issue of it. Consumer reaction should be a barometer that vendors use to gauge the acceptance of what they are trying to do to make a profit (which, incidentally, is their only motive).

What I don't understand are the stances taken (by the likes of wco81, Richard Paul, etc...) that implies that we should simply be quiet when vendor puts we, the consumer, at a disadvantage in order to further their agenda to increase profits.

My point : I am not arguing that BR is inherantly bad. I am arguing that the BDA should change their execution to less alienate their consumer base. I happen to think that making a stink about some things is a way to do that. I have no allegiances here..., I've made a similar point regarding Toshiba and 24p... I think their execution in that area is poor, and I'd like to see change.Go for it. Profiles were definitely not created to help consumers. Not educating consumers about them is not helping either. This is one issue I have to agree with you (can I trust your motives? :))

just curious, what percentage of that "installed base" are capable, forget willing, to buy a rather pricey bd disc; presuming of course that the installed base is predominantly people interested in gaming?

i asked a couple of my nephews what they would spend their money on and they resoundingly said games...i asked what if mom/dad offered to spring for a movie or a game, they again resoundingly said a game...i asked why, they said a movie only lasts 1-1/2 to 3 hr ...games are orders of magnitude more enjoyment time...go figure, gamers! ;)

with netflix and downloads and this will permiate well beyond gamers and into how mainstream consumers view movies and think about ownership.

ask yourself ...

why would the average 20-something invest $25 in "ice age" or "flightplan" bluray disc owhen they can netflix (no extra monthly cost) instead? it's not like you're going to watch the movie again, anytime soon and the gamer is right... that is 1.5-3 hours of usefulness. this is true for HD-DVD as well and will severely limit it also, but since a game machine is not bundled you have a different demographic initially and perhaps long term.

Sony simply can not cut prices in 2007 or the PS3 can not be profitable.

Sony is losing between $240 & $300 in the US and $330 & 400 in Japan. The average console owner purchases 8 new games over the consoles lifetime. Now some hardcore gamers may buy 10 or 20 but many will buy even less. Now @ 8 sales per console and $20 royalty per sales Sony can recoup maybe $160 per unit. Let's be generous and say $200 in revenue per unit compared to $240 - $400 loss per system.

The consoles sold in 2006 & 2007 are dead money. They will never recoup their investment. The goal however is to expand the base (promote development of blockbuster games) and generate economies of scale. Add the nearly $100 million in development costs for PS3 & Cell in general and you can start to see the massive margins Sony needs to pull off a profit. Figure if in 2006 and early 2007 Sony sells 8 million units with an average loss of $300, that is another $240 million in losses. Now say in late 2007 they cut their costs brining avg loss per system down $150. Will Sony cut prices?

The simple answer is they can not. They are now sunk $340 million. Figure $200 revenue from games & addons per system (over the systems lifetime) and they can potentially make back about $160 million. That still leave $180 or so million that need to be paid by future systems.

The point is if the agressively cut prices they will end up quickly in a situation where the upfront losses can never be made up by software sales. Sony needs to get the losses on avg system down to less than $160. Every price cut basicly works against them.

I am sure Microsoft is aware of this and will price aggressively in 2007.

I'm not going to try to get into some profound profit/loss scenarios for PS3 when there is absolutely no data to base a meaningful judgment on. My only statement was Sony possibly could make a pricing adjustment if they felt a need due to competitive pressures.

My personal feelings is that Sony has a tight grip on where they want to go with the PS3 marketing and only extraordinary conditions would cause them the vary from the "plan".

b2b

I'm not sure a "rule" based on that presumption is valid. If it were a fixed consumption market maybe you could draw a conclusion like that, but from all evidence the gaming market is still growing. The greatest strength that the PS line has is its franchise, one that PS3 continues even while the PS2 is still beating the Xb360 in unit volume.

Agreed, the market is still expanding, and I factored that in to my number. It's possible I set the bar too low at 10 million (maybe 15 million is more accurate), but I don't think so. We'll see. The big issue for Sony though is that they're selling 1 PS3 for every 6 to 7 Xbox360s during the prime selling season. Making up that gap is going to be extremely difficult.

I'm not going to try to predict any hard outcomes because there are lots of things that could alter the equation beyond the current circumstances. MS could choose to add a model with a built-in HD-DVD drive & HDMI or both Sony and MS could alter the pricing to accelerate sales rates.

Yes, I have a hunch both MS and Sony will lower their prices by April of next year.

I will predict this though. I think Hollywood will start marketing to the "installed" base of BD players in the PS3. To pass on that many known potential customers would be foolish on a grand scale... :)

How do you envision them targeting the PS3 installed base?

I have said it before also.....Price will be the determining factor in this console war. You are already seeing it's effect with the Wii. Sure it's neat and cute and innovative, but I don't think it is selling more because the masses of people think it is a better system. It isselling more right now because it is the cheapest $249.99 of the next gen consoles....It really shouldn't be any suprise. It's the most affordable way for parents to say " Here money you got one of the new game machines for Christmas". MS is in the drivers seat here when it comes down to them and Sony. I can easily see a Q1 price reduction on the. There will be plenty of PS3's on store shelves and MS knows that lowering the price will help keep some of those PS3's on the shelf. It would also put the system right in line with Wii pricing. And I think given the choice of choosing a 360 or PS3 over the Wii if the price were equal would be an easy one. And in this case it is clear that MS can go lower and do so quicker then Sony!

Cheeper hasn't been the determining factor in past console battles. Not sure why it should be this time round...

Agreed, the market is still expanding, and I factored that in to my number. It's possible I set the bar too low at 10 million (maybe 15 million is more accurate), but I don't think so. We'll see. The big issue for Sony though is that they're selling 1 PS3 for every 6 to 7 Xbox360s during the prime selling season. Making up that gap is going to be extremely difficult.



Yes, I have a hunch both MS and Sony will lower their prices by April of next year.



How do you envision them targeting the PS3 installed base?

Just throw a blurb into the pitch "now on DVD and BluRay/PS3". Universal has previews on their DVDs promoting HD-DVD complete with specific mention of Xb360 with graphics. Same thing can be done for BluRay/PS3. The only BD movie I saw at the local Walmart was right in the case next to the PS3 games, Xmen3 (Fox). Put discount coupons in PS3 games for BD movies...

Run wild with it... :)

b2b

Yes, I have a hunch both MS and Sony will lower their prices by April of next year.


I suspect that would be difficult for Sony, so soon.

I think a move to the 65nm for the Cell, the associated cost reductions for cooling, and dropping the silicon for PS1/PS2 compatibilty in favour of a software emulator will be required before Sony can really afford to drop the price.

Perhaps by next fall.

Gary

My advocacy preceded my purchase.

But I've not pronounced any judgement on which format is going to be better long-term just on what's happened so far. Can you say that about the HD-DVD boosters here?

We will be better off in the long term with just one format, even if that format is HD-DVD (even though the odds are against it). I can live with HD-DVD winning and my having to discard any Blu-Ray movies I've accumulated by the time HD-DVD wins. Can the HD-DVD boosters say the same?

Well, I certainly don't speak for anybody other than myself... you can ask whomever you consider the "HD-DVD boosters" whatever you feel you want.

As for my advocacy: I'm advocating that both formats give us what we want with as few strings attached as possible.

Me? I want a clear indicator of what my hardware will do with known planned features. If you wanna take a gamble on having to ebay your $1500 player and take a $1000 loss on it so be it. I'd rather know up front.'

Incidentally, you didn't answer the question.

Go for it. Profiles were definitely not created to help consumers. Not educating consumers about them is not helping either. This is one issue I have to agree with you (can I trust your motives? :))

As long as you're OK with my motives being entirely selfish: I want the most bang for the least of MY bucks! ;)

My point : I am not arguing that BR is inherantly bad. I am arguing that the BDA should change their execution to less alienate their consumer base. I happen to think that making a stink about some things is a way to do that. I have no allegiances here..., I've made a similar point regarding Toshiba and 24p... I think their execution in that area is poor, and I'd like to see change.
At least you know that BD has profiles. What until you see how 24p is going to be implemented on HD-DVD. BD profiles will seem moot by comparison.

Ron

As long as you're OK with my motives being entirely selfish: I want the most bang for the least of MY bucks! ;)If I didn't like this kind of selfish motive, I would have to dislike myself! That would be too hard for my ego!

My suggestion: Go buy PS3! [I know the answer] :)

At least you know that BD has profiles. What until you see how 24p is going to be implemented on HD-DVD. BD profiles will seem moot by comparison.

Ron

Uh-oh... Seems the cat is clawing it's way out of the bag... :D

Does it start with "klu" and end with "dge"... :eek:

b2b

At least you know that BD has profiles. What until you see how 24p is going to be implemented on HD-DVD. BD profiles will seem moot by comparison.

Ron

Oh yeah?

Well spill it man!

If I had to take a swag: 24p will disable alternate non-24p streams, correct?

Well I will just quote myself ... ;)


That's the big question. "Who Knows ??" You have a "defined" set of consumers all having a device with a "known" capability that you can market to. What the result of that marketing will be is the great unknown.

My only suggestion is that not targeting that base would be foolish to pass up.

Maybe mom/dad will buy the BD movie and commander the PS3 out of the clutches of the gamers for a few hours of their own enjoyment (they're the ones footing the bill right ?) :D

b2b


:D

Oh yeah?

Well spill it man!

If I had to take a swag: 24p will disable alternate non-24p streams, correct?

i think it will require two hd dvd players connected via a network connection and then each connected to its own input on the tv/monitor; then you hit the PiP button on the tv/monitor and voila :D

for those who may not appreciate this, i'm kidding :eek:

I'm not going to try to get into some profound profit/loss scenarios for PS3 when there is absolutely no data to base a meaningful judgment on. My only statement was Sony possibly could make a pricing adjustment if they felt a need due to competitive pressures.

My personal feelings is that Sony has a tight grip on where they want to go with the PS3 marketing and only extraordinary conditions would cause them the vary from the "plan".

b2b

That is where we disagree.
Sony can't cut prices because the PS3 is already up to $400 below cost. The price cut is already built in.
Sony has already lost their "tight grip" on where they want to go. They have given the ball to Microsoft by launching 9 months late, in tiny numbers, with supply issues, and higher costs and anticipated.

Plan & Simple Sony is losing $240 - $400 per console. Future software revenue can NOT cover a loss like that. The only way is make the system profitable is to get the system loss < $160 / unit. They can do this by cutting their production costs however if they cut their costs by $100 and lower prices by $100 then they are back to the same loss per unit. Right now every PS3 sold is dead money. Most will never generate enough software revenue to pay for the $240 - $400 upfront loss. Now Sony can/will handle this by lowering their production costs by price cuts run contrary to that agenda.

Here is my prediction:
Sony will not cut the price of the PS3 prior to 2008 even when facing substantial price cuts from Microsoft and Nintendo in 2007.

Here is my bet:
I will buy a Sony BD player if Sony cuts the price on the PS3 before 2008.

I suspect that would be difficult for Sony, so soon.

I think a move to the 65nm for the Cell, the associated cost reductions for cooling, and dropping the silicon for PS1/PS2 compatibilty in favour of a software emulator will be required before Sony can really afford to drop the price.

Perhaps by next fall.

Gary

I was going to say that Sony is already subsidizing PS3 heavily and more so in Japan than North America. I could see them extending the heavier Japan subsidy into the North American market. That would move the price from $499/$599 to $399/$499 (approximately the price in Japan).

But I forgot that it doesn't make sense for Sony to do this unless they can manufacture PS3 in big quantities. Why lower the price on an already scarce commodity? So I don't think we'll see any price action untill after they can make PS3s hand over fist. At that point I would expect a price cut to try and catch up to Xbox360.

Things don't look promissing on that front though. Even with Sharp coming on line to produce blue lasers, their entire projected output for 2007 is 500,000 units. Some of those are going to Toshiba, but even if all of them went to Sony, at 125,000 units per quarter, that's a drop in the bucket toward the promise of 6 million PS3s world wide by the end of March.

Oh yeah?

Well spill it man!

If I had to take a swag: 24p will disable alternate non-24p streams, correct?

Why not just play the PiP content at 24 fps instead of 30? Is anyone really concerned about judder on the PiP content?

I plan to ask the folks from Toshiba how they're going implement this on the XA2 when I'm at CES.

I just posted this on the News thread. Probably the last batch of PS3s we'll see before Christmas.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/20/ps3_shipment/

It doesn't look like you need to. A "good enough" RS system would be a perfect match to "good enough" format like HD-DVD. Got any model numbers to recommend ?? ;)

Is this one of those "bits & bandwidth" issues with HD-DVD not being able to cut the mustard if you throw in too many lossless audio tracks ??

I really don't care, I just figured all of the lossless audio fans would be up in arms if all they're getting is DD+ with HD-DVD. Plus too if DD+ is "good enough" i don't understand why HD-DVD makes decoding all those supported audio codecs mandatory, with DD+ being "good enough" and whatnot. :)

b2b

It amazes me to see the snide comments on HD DVD, when Blu-Ray, with it's incredible specs and hefty studio support, has yet to better it. For all the talk about how BD outclasses HDDVD, is there one title that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the better specs translate into any real world advantage at all?

It amazes me to see the snide comments on HD DVD, when Blu-Ray, with it's incredible specs and hefty studio support, has yet to better it. For all the talk about how BD outclasses HDDVD, is there one title that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the better specs translate into any real world advantage at all?

Sopranos Season 6 Part 1

BluRay Audio = LPCM (lossless)
HD-DVD Audio = DD+ (lossy)

b2b

Why not just play the PiP content at 24 fps instead of 30? Is anyone really concerned about judder on the PiP content?

I plan to ask the folks from Toshiba how they're going implement this on the XA2 when I'm at CES.

That would be my preference: decimate or frame-repeat the secondary streams as need be to match the primary stream rate.

I'd much rather deal with judder or decimation in a PiP window occasionally than in the main feature all the time.

With Ron's comments, I decided to expect the worst... perhaps the decoders can't do such things easily for secondary streams...

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised!

I just posted this on the News thread. Probably the last batch of PS3s we'll see before Christmas.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/12/20/ps3_shipment/Sony declined to comment on a specific number on how many Playstation units were shipped to the U.S. in recent days. A spokesperson told us that the consoles "are made and shipped" as quickly possible and are arriving on an ongoing basis on these shores. Well I suppose being silent is better than lying about it if you don't like the news. ;)

That would be my preference: decimate or frame-repeat the secondary streams as need be to match the primary stream rate.

I'd much rather deal with judder or decimation in a PiP window occasionally than in the main feature all the time.

With Ron's comments, I decided to expect the worst... perhaps the decoders can't do such things easily for secondary streams...

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised! I put in a clear vote here in agreement. Give me the 24fps option on the main feature, I don't give a damn about judder on the PIP anyway, heck I tolerate handy cam, b&W outtakes, half finished effects and no makeup on a scruffy looking director there now. In any bonus feature I can tolerate flaws as long as its interesting.

I want the main feature to be as perfect as possible.

I put in a clear vote here in agreement. Give me the 24fps option on the main feature, I don't give a damn about judder on the PIP anyway, heck I tolerate handy cam, b&W outtakes, half finished effects and no makeup on a scruffy looking director there now. In any bonus feature I can tolerate flaws as long as its interesting.

I want the main feature to be as perfect as possible.

Richard, wco81, Talk, and onanie, please take note: Kosty and I are levying a "complaint" against possible HD DVD execution we would find less than ideal!.

That is all. Thank you.

:)

Richard, wco81, Talk, and onanie, please take note: Kosty and I are levying a "complaint" against possible HD DVD execution we would find less than ideal!.

That is all. Thank you.

:) I do want 24fps playback on the main film. :D I may watch the PIP commentary once compared to the many times I will watch I movie I bought.

I want the HD shiny disc to be as good as it can be with the features Picture Quality.

I also want both formats to get better as I think its unlikely that either will die at this point. I'll criticise any execution in a HD DVD release just as much or more that I would if the disc was in Blu-ray.

I was going to say that Sony is already subsidizing PS3 heavily and more so in Japan than North America. I could see them extending the heavier Japan subsidy into the North American market. That would move the price from $499/$599 to $399/$499 (approximately the price in Japan).

But I forgot that it doesn't make sense for Sony to do this unless they can manufacture PS3 in big quantities. Why lower the price on an already scarce commodity? So I don't think we'll see any price action untill after they can make PS3s hand over fist. At that point I would expect a price cut to try and catch up to Xbox360.

Things don't look promissing on that front though. Even with Sharp coming on line to produce blue lasers, their entire projected output for 2007 is 500,000 units. Some of those are going to Toshiba, but even if all of them went to Sony, at 125,000 units per quarter, that's a drop in the bucket toward the promise of 6 million PS3s world wide by the end of March.

500,000 units a month, not a year.

500,000 units a month, not a year.

Thanks for the correction, I misread the article. It looks like the actual production is as follows.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/article11944.html

Electronics maker Sharp has announced it has launched commercial production of blue laser diodes, cranking out 150,000 units a month from a plant in western Japan.


Sharp said it plans to increase production of the diodes to 500,000 units a month by the end of 2007, but declined to speculate on its sales targets.


So if we average the numbers out over 2007, starting at 150,000 a month at the start and progressing to 500,000 a month at the end of the year we get 3.9 million for the year (assuming they can ramp the production as high as they hope). Some will go to Toshiba, some will go to BD CEs, not sure if Sony has signed to buy any. These numbers are still small when you think about the volume needed for PS3 production during 2007.

Sopranos Season 6 Part 1

BluRay Audio = LPCM (lossless)
HD-DVD Audio = DD+ (lossy)

And your listening tests reveal?

They're using PCM because there isn't any lossy codec as good as DD+ @ 1.5 Mbps mandatory in BD.

Link posted by Rob Zuber on the news thread.

Finally, PlayStation 3 sales rise in Japan
http://reseller.co.nz/reseller.nsf/news/451850E4588366A9CC25724B000BB8BF

Japan Weekly Console Sales
PS3 Wii
81,639 n/a Nov. 11-12
42,099 n/a Nov. 13-19
32,622 n/a Nov. 20-27
31,436 350,358 Nov. 27 to Dec. 3
50,171 85,439 Dec. 4 to 10

Total PS3=237,967
Total Wii =435,797

And your listening tests reveal?

They're using PCM because there isn't any lossy codec as good as DD+ @ 1.5 Mbps mandatory in BD.

Oh, it's Christmas....give him a small victory. ;)

If this is the best b2b can come up with, it pretty much speaks for itself.

Well - I think it's pretty ridiculous. If the PS3 could decode two streams at once and therefore be able to do PIP, and therefore be capable of being BD-Live compatible, then I think someone in the BD camp would be up here in a flash to tell everyone.Well from what I have heard the PS3 is actually capable of decoding two 40 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC HP streams at once. Of course you may claim that hasn't been shown but we know for a fact that it can decode a 40 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC HP stream at 1.5x speed. Both of which are interesting since they would indicate that the PS3 is more than capable of decoding two video streams at once. Especially considering that the maximum combined video bit rate for both video streams has to be 40 Mbps or less.


Therefore, I think it's a pretty well-founded conclusion to figure that the PS3 can't do it.No offense but no only is that one of the poorest conclusions I have heard in a while but there really isn't any question about whether or not the PS3 can do PiP with Blu-ray. Of course it could. The question is when, or if you are very pessimistic if, that ability will be added to the PS3.


If they had thought the whole thing through up front, there would have been no need to have two standards - the "second phase", otherwise known as BD-Live, is, IMO, a "tack-on" to try to match the features of HDi.For what you consider a tack-on I guess beating HD DVD in terms of requirements is something that you simply consider a minor detail. After all Amir wasn't arguing against HD PiP on this forum for no reason at all.


So here's what Bluray has ended up with - BD-J, in the currewnt Bluray players, is inferior to HDi.Do you know for certain that anything that BD-J can do can also be done with HDi? If not than how can you possibly claim this?


When I use the word obsolete, it's my opinion that it's pretty accurate here....Technically speaking the PS2, Xbox, and HD-A1 are obsolete products but you know quite that people do not go by the dictionary definition of that word. You know quite well that when you use that word in your signature that people may not correctly understand what it means. As such you are going out of your way to deceive people about Blu-ray and defend that by saying that it is an opinion. Maybe so, but it still isn't a very honest thing to do.


By the way - in the HD News thread, we've just found out that Disney has released Flightplan as a VC1 encode! And they say Casanova is next in VC1....

And BDboys said it wasn't true....I don't remember anyone claiming that Disney would never start using VC-1 for their Blu-ray releases. Now if you think this news means that Disney is going neutral than you can have that opinion. Personally though I wouldn't get to excited about that since any studio can use VC-1. Even a studio exclusive to Blu-ray.


They are certainly better positioned to release to HD DVD now, so that's good news for HD DVD also, IMO.Exactly how does Disney using VC-1 make them better positioned to release on HD DVD? Also do you even know if the encoding that is used for Flightplan could be used for HD DVD?

And your listening tests reveal?

They're using PCM because there isn't any lossy codec as good as DD+ @ 1.5 Mbps mandatory in BD.

What's with this "mandatory" business everyone keeps pointing out. Aren't all HD DVDs supposed to have mandatory 2.0 True HD? How many titles have True HD, period? 10 maybe out of 150+?

Why not just play the PiP content at 24 fps instead of 30? Is anyone really concerned about judder on the PiP content?


That would be a supreme case of the tail wagging the dog (which is not unheard-of on this format war, and by both sides).


*********

Now for something completely different. I'm not posting this on the news thread, so in the spirit of holiday fun:

MS exec uses the P-word! (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21871)
"I think the Wii is of interest, I'm not sure what its long term potential is."

:D

A bit more seriously:

Paramount: 'Mission Impossible III' Top Selling Hi-Def DVD (http://www.homemediaretailing.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=10072)

And look at the commentary on highdefdigest (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/High-Def_Disc_Sales/High-Def_Disc_Marketing/Paramount/Mission:_Impossible_III_Top-Selling_High-Def_Title_of_2006/400)

[...]

Released on Blu-ray, HD DVD and standard-definition simultaneously on October 30 as part of Paramount's "Mission Monday" mega-marketing blitz, 'M:i:III' immediately snatched the honors of having the highest first shipment total of any next-gen title, with reports estimating an initial retail assault of over 20,000 copies. (Not a huge number at first glance, but quite considerable for a just-launched home video format.)

Unfortunately, Paramount's boast today that 'M:i:III' is now the top-selling high-definition packaged media title in 2006 comes with no hard sales figures. Nor which format moved more copies. The claim is also apparently entirely studio-generated, so forgive us if we take the news with a grain of salt.

Still, there is not doubt that Mission: TomKat was a big success on high-definition, and anytime a next-gen title generates such interest and media buzz, we're all for it.

Hopefully, someday soon VideoScan, which is currently the leading independent industry firm for tracking point-of-sales data, will begin to release some concrete stats on Blu-ray and HD DVD software. [...]

I put in a clear vote here in agreement. Give me the 24fps option on the main feature, I don't give a damn about judder on the PIP anyway, heck I tolerate handy cam, b&W outtakes, half finished effects and no makeup on a scruffy looking director there now. In any bonus feature I can tolerate flaws as long as its interesting.

I want the main feature to be as perfect as possible.
My sentiments exactly. If you could alter the main movie from 24FPS to 60FPS, why not change the secondary PIP window from 60FPS to 24FPS. Who the heck comes up with these priorities anyways?

Sopranos Season 6 Part 1

BluRay Audio = LPCM (lossless)
HD-DVD Audio = DD+ (lossy)

b2b

That's it? After all the talk of how higher bitrates and more capacity and studio muscle make BD the big winner, the best you can pull out is that the Sopranos has a lossless audio track whereas the HD DVD doesn't?

What's with this "mandatory" business everyone keeps pointing out. Aren't all HD DVDs supposed to have mandatory 2.0 True HD?

No.

show of hands, how many people here have a monitor/display that can display at 24p, or multiple thereof?

i recently just got one, but all others in my home aren't capable and will not be replaced any time soon.

i also wonder what percentage of consumers out there have front projection systems?

What's with this "mandatory" business everyone keeps pointing out. Aren't all HD DVDs supposed to have mandatory 2.0 True HD? How many titles have True HD, period? 10 maybe out of 150+?

All HD DVD players need to decode 2.0 TrueHD. It's not mandatory for HD DVD movies.

What's with this "mandatory" business everyone keeps pointing out. Aren't all HD DVDs supposed to have mandatory 2.0 True HD? How many titles have True HD, period? 10 maybe out of 150+?

all hd dvd players must decode 2.0 TrueHD, yes...studios don't have to release a TrueHD track.

i was doing some a/b comparos again last night with superman returns and i'll be damned if i can detect a difference between the THD track and the DD+ being reencoded to DTS out my optical and into my Yamaha RX-Z9

All HD DVD players need to decode 2.0 TrueHD. It's not mandatory for HD DVD movies.

ok, the similarities in responses is eery :)

That would be a supreme case of the tail wagging the dog (which is not unheard-of on this format war, and by both sides).


*********

Now for something completely different. I'm not posting this on the news thread, so in the spirit of holiday fun:

MS exec uses the P-word! (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21871)
"I think the Wii is of interest, I'm not sure what its long term potential is."

:D

i don't follow, i certainly consider the pip the tail and the main video the dog and therefore making the pip display at the main video's 24 (for native 24 content) wouldn't be the tail wagging the dog...did i miss something?

i don't follow, i certainly consider the pip the tail and the main video the dog and therefore making the pip display at the main video's 24 (for native 24 content) wouldn't be the tail wagging the dog...did i miss something?

I was referring to the last part of your post, ie being 'really concerned about judder in the PiP content.' ;)


So we are in agreement... I guess. :D

Yes, I figured you'd get the job to try to dismantle my post ;)

The trouble is you can't... all you can add is "I think" and "why not".
Well from what I have heard the PS3 is actually capable of decoding two 40 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC HP streams at once. Of course you may claim that hasn't been shown but we know for a fact that it can decode a 40 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC HP stream at 1.5x speed. Both of which are interesting since they would indicate that the PS3 is more than capable of decoding two video streams at once. Especially considering that the maximum combined video bit rate for both video streams has to be 40 Mbps or less.Exactly - it's neither been shown nor demonstrated that the PS3 can decode two videos streams at once, which would be necessary in order to be able to do the BD-Live spec.

Your "anecdote" that it can decode a video stream at 1.5x speed is totally irrelevant, sinc it's not even 2x, and further, bears no relation to actually decoding 2 separate streams - multitasking/mutlithreading is not said to be a great strength of the Cell processor, due to almost non-existent caches and pipes, etc.

No offense but no only is that one of the poorest conclusions I have heard in a while but there really isn't any question about whether or not the PS3 can do PiP with Blu-ray. Of course it could. The question is when, or if you are very pessimistic if, that ability will be added to the PS3.None taken - but your knee-jerk attack on my conclusion has even less merit.

With all the talk about the PS3 and BD-Live compatibility before the launch, most Bluray supporters were very surprised to discover that the PS3 is not BD-Live compatible.

Sony's silence on the matter is very telling in my view... since they are usually the first to jump out in public with promises. Therefore, it's my opinion that the PS3 won't be able to do BD-Live PiP... I'm not asking you to agree. Perhaps you could come up with some logic to support your opposite view, tho?

For what you consider a tack-on I guess beating HD DVD in terms of requirements is something that you simply consider a minor detail. Do you know for certain that anything that BD-J can do can also be done with HDi? If not than how can you possibly claim this?Putting more words into my mouth to suit yourself - I said HDi is better than BD-J. There's no arguing with this, no matter how you try to twist what I have said. And yes, moving onto BD-Live, in my opinion it's a "tack on" that was added in very late in the day to match HDi's features. And to further re-inforce my original point, I think it's pretty poor going that they went to market before Bluray was ready, and that none of the current standalone players will ever be able to do BD-Live....

Technically speaking the PS2, Xbox, and HD-A1 are obsolete products Your cheap shot at the xbox is noted. A product that has only been on the market one year is obsolete? Hardly - that would only be the case if it turned out it could NOT handle all the software that is coming out for it. Hmmm, let me think of an example... OH YES! All those Bluray standalone players that won't be able to do BD-Live! :p

but you know quite that people do not go by the dictionary definition of that word. You know quite well that when you use that word in your signature that people may not correctly understand what it means.So let's look at a few definitions then - we'll start with Webster:

of a kind or style no longer current - seems to me that it couldn't possibly be MORE descriptive of the Bluray players on sale right now, which already lack a key feature of the Bluray specification (BD-Live) which will be in the newer players next year...

or this
ob-so-lete: out-of-date: superseded by something newer, though possibly still in use - again, this almost PERFECTLY describes the situation with the current BD players

or this
Imperfectly developed; not very distinct; obscure; rudimental; abortive. Hmmm, reminds me of the Bluray player manufacturer who announced their new Bluray player, and on the same day announced they would have a better player next year that could handle advanced audio and that they would discontinue the player they were in the middle of launching...

or this
Outmoded in design, style, or construction - (as in won't be able to handle a specification of BD-Live that is already approved before these players are even sold to users)

or this
To become obsolete; to go out of use - (as in, these non-BD-Live-Compatible players will likely no longer be marketed once the BD-Live players come to market next year).

I love this one, tho:
OBSOLETE, adj. No longer used by the timid. Said chiefly of words. A word which some lexicographer has marked obsolete is ever thereafter an object of dread and loathing to the fool writer

Or how about using it as a verb, "to obsolete"? :)
To perform some action that causes, or attempts to cause, something to become obsolete. ie: This software component has been obsoleted. Or: We are in the process of obsoleting this product

As such you are going out of your way to deceive people about Blu-ray and defend that by saying that it is an opinion. Maybe so, but it still isn't a very honest thing to do.Call me dishonest if you like - My opinion is that these Bluray players are already obselete, based on BD-Live being the end goal for the BD spec, and the new machines in the pipe for next year that are able to play it. The definitions of the word "obsolete" above would seem to back my opinion up quite nicely...

And your listening tests reveal?

They're using PCM because there isn't any lossy codec as good as DD+ @ 1.5 Mbps mandatory in BD.

Sorry Ben. DD 640k is fine for me.

If you are going to try to sell HD-DVD with DD+ is "good enough" it's the audiophiles with thousands tied up in their audio systems that you will have to convince, not me...

Good luck with that bit of "social engineering"... But on second thought, MS has convinced a lot of folks that "slower and smaller" is better than "bigger and faster", so I guess anything is possible. ;)

b2b

benwaggoner
And your listening tests reveal?

They're using PCM because there isn't any lossy codec as good as DD+ @ 1.5 Mbps mandatory in BD.

Sorry Ben. DD 640k is fine for me.

If you are going to try to sell HD-DVD with DD+ is "good enough" it's the audiophiles with thousands tied up in their audio systems that you will have to convince, not me...

Good luck with that bit of "social engineering"... But on second thought, MS has convinced a lot of folks that "slower and smaller" is better than "bigger and faster", so I guess anything is possible. ;)

b2b

Listening tests? I thought you didnt even have a player from either format, am I wrong? I dont know why you make comparisons like this without having viewed these movies

show of hands, how many people here have a monitor/display that can display at 24p, or multiple thereof?

i recently just got one, but all others in my home aren't capable and will not be replaced any time soon.

i also wonder what percentage of consumers out there have front projection systems?


{raises hand}

That's it? After all the talk of how higher bitrates and more capacity and studio muscle make BD the big winner, the best you can pull out is that the Sopranos has a lossless audio track whereas the HD DVD doesn't?

Well this is what you asked...
For all the talk about how BD outclasses HDDVD, is there one title that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the better specs translate into any real world advantage at all?

That was the most obvious one. A recent release, same studio, same title, same everything, except the BD being obviously better with lossless audio. If you want more examples look here..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=665702

Find all of the BD releases with lossless audio vs. HD-DVD with DD+ and it's pretty clear that if you like HD-DVD you had better like DD+ because that's mostly what you are going to get...

Ask Ben... He will tell you DD+ is "good enough"... ;)

b2b

Find all of the BD releases with lossless audio vs. HD-DVD with DD+ and it's pretty clear that if you like HD-DVD you had better like DD+ because that's mostly what you are going to get...

Ask Ben... He will tell you DD+ is "good enough"... ;)

b2b

Have you even watched any of these titles?

Have you even watched any of these titles?

Yes I have watched most every one.

b2b

Yes I have watched most every one.

b2b

when did you buy a player? which one?

...


Find all of the BD releases with lossless audio vs. HD-DVD with DD+ and it's pretty clear that if you like HD-DVD you had better like DD+ because that's mostly what you are going to get...

Ask Ben... He will tell you DD+ is "good enough"... ;)

b2b

i think ben is saying exactly what the bd group has been saying and continues to say since they have no other choice, but that is where the ... comes in

"good enough for now b/c we may get better...we have potential" ;)

when did you buy a player? which one?

HD players I have none. SD players I have ten (3 brand new still in the box).

b2b

HD players I have none. SD players I have ten (3 brand new still in the box).

b2b

i'm confused...so you have no idea what dd+ on hd dvd (doesn't exist on bd yet as far as i know) sounds like vs the pcm version on bd?

i thought that was what you were answering...or are you just being coy with words :eek:

Well this is what you asked...


That was the most obvious one. A recent release, same studio, same title, same everything, except the BD being obviously better with lossless audio. If you want more examples look here..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=665702

Find all of the BD releases with lossless audio vs. HD-DVD with DD+ and it's pretty clear that if you like HD-DVD you had better like DD+ because that's mostly what you are going to get...

Ask Ben... He will tell you DD+ is "good enough"... ;)

b2b


So all the arguments in favour of BD come down to "it has lossless audio more of the time"? I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying if that's the only real-world advantage of going with BD, despite the better-on-paper specs and studio support, then BD is on even shakier ground than I thought.

show of hands, how many people here have a monitor/display that can display at 24p, or multiple thereof?

i recently just got one, but all others in my home aren't capable and will not be replaced any time soon.

i also wonder what percentage of consumers out there have front projection systems?

I'm planning on buying the 52" d92 from Sharp that has a 120Hz refresh and can apparently accept a 1080p24 input. It's going to be announced at CES and has already shown up on line for pre-order. I'm planning to connect an XA2 that according to Robert in the G2 thread will be software upgradable to 1080p24. I also plan to connect a PS3 which according to Sony will be software upgradable to 1080p24 as well.

So all the arguments in favour of BD come down to "it has lossless audio more of the time"? I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying if that's the only real-world advantage of going with BD, despite the better-on-paper specs and studio support, then BD is on even shakier ground than I thought.

No, it's HD-DVD that is on shaky ground by offering so little to work with in terms of bandwidth and storage capacity... Time for the chart... ;)

Blu-Ray 48Mbps, 50GB
0.........1.........2....x....3.........4.........50GB
+------------------------|------------------------+
| | |48 Mb/s
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |40
| | |
HD-DVD 30Mbps, 30GB | |
0.........1.........2.........30GB |
+-----------------------------+30 Mb/s |30
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |20 |20
| | |
DVD 10Mbps, 9.4GB | |
0........9.4GB | |
+--------+10 Mb/s |10 |10
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |0
+--------+--------------------+-------------------+

Not having a strong use of lossless audio on HD-DVD is just a symptom of the "slower and smaller" that is being sold by some as the superior technology. It just ain't true... :)

b2b

i'm confused...so you have no idea what dd+ on hd dvd (doesn't exist on bd yet as far as i know) sounds like vs the pcm version on bd?

i thought that was what you were answering...or are you just being coy with words :eek:
This was my comment..
I really don't care, I just figured all of the lossless audio fans would be up in arms if all they're getting is DD+ with HD-DVD. Plus too if DD+ is "good enough" i don't understand why HD-DVD makes decoding all those supported audio codecs mandatory, with DD+ being "good enough" and whatnot.

There are a lot of folks that hold "lossless" near and dear to their hearts and if DD+ becomes the "good enough" for HD-DVD, I would think they would not be pleased.

b2b

show of hands, how many people here have a monitor/display that can display at 24p, or multiple thereof?

i recently just got one, but all others in my home aren't capable and will not be replaced any time soon.

i also wonder what percentage of consumers out there have front projection systems?
Am in the process of buying a new projector with this feature.

Naturally, I think that the real need for 24p is in the Home Theater - I don't think I'll feel a rush to replace my sets in the rest of the house either (although it looks like I'm about to get rid of my new Samsung 46" 1080p LCD... grrr....)

:)

This was my comment..


There are a lot of folks that hold "lossless" near and dear to their hearts and if DD+ becomes the "good enough" for HD-DVD, I would think they would not be pleased.

b2b

it seems that the studios are releasing TrueHD tracks when they deem it worthy...i got another one just yesterday (can't recall if it was matador or scorpion king)...

good enough for certain titles is certainly ok by me...i was quite surprised they released ant bully with TrueHD!

and, either i need new "ears" or better equipment b/c i cannot hear a difference...maybe my wife's incessant nagging has damaged my hearing :)

Find all of the BD releases with lossless audio vs. HD-DVD with DD+ and it's pretty clear that if you like HD-DVD you had better like DD+ because that's mostly what you are going to get...

Ask Ben... He will tell you DD+ is "good enough"... ;)

b2b
Heh, this is really funny coming from you when you are the one that states THIS:

Sorry Ben. DD 640k is fine for me. It's pretty obvious you make that statement because that's the only compressed option on most BR discs.

For the record, DD+ at the higher bitrates on many titles sounds far better than old-style DD at 640k that you are so pleased with... ;)

LPCM is only on BR discs at all because the BR players were never mandated to be able to decode DD+ or TruHD - don't forget that little detail.

Your knocking of DD+ is purely self-serving to imply that it doesn't sound brilliant in order to further BR.

Rest assured I have a truly fantastic sound system, which I revamped lately, and DD+ can sound spectacular.

BTW, bonez, you might want to try doing some DD+ listening on an actual HD DVD setup before you start posting commentary on "what DD+ sounds like"... ;) just some advice...

i don't want to throw a fly in the ointment rdj but i think dressler has stated that dd 640 is the same as dd+ at 1.5 ... not sure how/why, but i do think he stated that...i'm sure the "others" will pummel you with this shortly and probably even provide links :)

but the funny thing is that b2b hasn't actually heard what is available *shrugs*

Heh, this is really funny coming from you when you are the one that states THIS:

It's pretty obvious you make that statement because that's the only compressed option on most BR discs.

For the record, DD+ at the higher bitrates on many titles sounds far better than old-style DD at 640k that you are so pleased with... ;)

LPCM is only on BR discs at all because the BR players were never mandated to be able to decode DD+ or TruHD - don't forget that little detail.

Your knocking of DD+ is purely self-serving to imply that it doesn't sound brilliant in order to further BR.

Rest assured I have a truly fantastic sound system, which I revamped lately, and DD+ can sound spectacular.

Well then DD+ is obviously "good enough" for you... ;)

b2b

i don't want to throw a fly in the ointment rdj but i think dressler has stated that dd 640 is the same as dd+ at 1.5 ... not sure how/why, but i do think he stated that...i'm sure the "others" will pummel you with this shortly and probably even provide links :)

but the funny thing is that b2b hasn't actually heard what is available *shrugs*
They've already had a shot, but will likely continue.

(EDIT)Roger was fairly "general" in the way he said it, but he was talking about 640k DD and 640k DD+. He said "to him" they sounded the same, but caveated that his ears were getting a little old, or something to that effect.

As far as 1.5 mbps DD+ is concerned, he didn't actually say that 640k DD sounded the same - only that there were "diminishing returns" in going to the maximum bitrates for DD+.

I can guarantee that there is an EASILY discernable difference between a DD+ 1.5 mbps track and a DD 640k track. I think Roger just got caught in a bit of a spot during one of those "BD audio versus HD DVD audio" debates. I believe he was trying not to hurt the BD format in the discussion.

Of course, he may jump in here to comment also, but with full respect to Roger, I stand by my statement.

I have a 7 speaker Magnepan setup that brings out every single nuance of these soundtracks. Even at 1.5 mbps DD+, there will be some soundtracks that just don't do the format justice, and you can hear the difference with those just as easily as you can hear the difference with DD 640k.

Now, I admit that my system is not average, and that folks listening to these discs on their TV speakers will likely never be able to tell the difference - but someone who has invested wisely in their audio system will have little trouble picking them apart.

Well then DD+ is obviously "good enough" for you... ;)

b2b
Again - maybe if you actually heard it we'd take your comments a little more seriously.

No one is saying that we don't want TruHD and DTS-HD tracks as well, since those define the ultimate experience, and no one is debating that LPCm tracks can give you that experience also (especially if they start doing truly lossless 24 bit recordings instead of dithering to 16 bit), but we've seen what uncompressed LPCM has cost the Bluray PQ on some releases...

i don't want to throw a fly in the ointment rdj but i think dressler has stated that dd 640 is the same as dd+ at 1.5 ... not sure how/why, but i do think he stated that...i'm sure the "others" will pummel you with this shortly and probably even provide links :)

but the funny thing is that b2b hasn't actually heard what is available *shrugs*

In three years I don't want to have 10 HD players (with 3 brand new ones still in the box)... :)

Rogers comments..
If the former, then what was the real benefit of using 3 Mbps in the first place? Some marketing advantage--more bits must be better bits? That does not well serve the format or the consumer. The same question can be asked for the 1.5 Mbps rate, but at least in that case there's ample room to grow for the 7.1 option, but after that, we're almost maxed out again. We thought it was cool that Universal matched our bitrate to DTS's. But that rate is not necessary to get the full benefit of DD+ for 5.1. It is indeed rapidly diminishing returns beyond 640 kbs.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8197590&&#post8197590

b2b

In three years I don't want to have 10 HD players (with 3 brand new ones still in the box)... :)

Rogers comments..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8197590&&#post8197590

b2b

i knew there would be links...

but, without clicking through your link (i don't have time; and i recall living it once, reliving that period won't be good :)), and reading what you highlighted, dressler says nothing about regular dd at 640k vs. dd+ at 1.5M...he is actually saying that when encoding with dd+ you don't have to crank it up to 1.5 but dd+ at 640k is "good enough"

[EDIT: to be clear, i'm not begrudging your decision not to be an early adopter, just find it strange that you are discussing the audio differences...3rd gen should be about right for you...maybe even me if i can stave off my impulse buys]

I'm planning on buying the 52" d92 from Sharp that has a 120Hz refresh and can apparently accept a 1080p24 input. It's going to be announced at CES and has already shown up on line for pre-order. I'm planning to connect an XA2 that according to Robert in the G2 thread will be software upgradable to 1080p24. I also plan to connect a PS3 which according to Sony will be software upgradable to 1080p24 as well.

That's a lot of promises of potential you are taking on faith. Methinks you should be more of a BD supporter with that attitude. ;)

Seriously though, I think if it were me I'd wait to see all of those things materialize before I plunked down some cash (assuming I had a acceptible solution in the mean time).

but the funny thing is that b2b hasn't actually heard what is available *shrugs*

Hasn't heard or seen what's available, for that matter. Looks like it's not stopping him from being the "expert" on all of it, though. ;)

This was my comment..


There are a lot of folks that hold "lossless" near and dear to their hearts and if DD+ becomes the "good enough" for HD-DVD, I would think they would not be pleased.

b2b

The lossless argument is really starting to get old. People seem to want to ignore the fact that most of these lossless/PCM tracks are not 24/48. Instead, they LOSE QUALITY by only being 16/48. So, there is the choice-would you rather lose quality through the lossy compression of a 24/48 track at 1.5mbps, or would you rather be stuck with a 16/48 lossless track. I'll take the Dolby Digital Plus track when given that choice. I would also choose 24/48 lossless/PCM over any of them, as long as the video quality is not affected adversely. If BD-50 is so great, then every BD-50 disc SHOULD have 24/48 (or even 20/48) tracks, but for some reason Sony appears to be sticking to 16/48. Perhaps Sony does not want to indicate the INFERIORITY of all of their BD-25 releases with 16/48 tracks. Or perhaps all those people going on and on about how great the 16/48 tracks are has convinced Sony that 24/48 is unnecessary (I think paidgeek alluded to this).

There are a lot of folks that hold "the best sound" near and dear to their hearts, and if 16/48 PCM becomes the "good enough" for Blu-Ray, I would think they would not be pleased.

That's a lot of promises of potential you are taking on faith. Methinks you should be more of a BD supporter with that attitude. ;)

Seriously though, I think if it were me I'd wait to see all of those things materialize before I plunked down some cash (assuming I had a acceptible solution in the mean time).

I'm going to CES and I'll talk to Sharp, Toshiba, Sony and as many others as I can while I'm there. Is there something specific in my planned configuration you have concerns about?

Let me understand this "DD+ is good enough" mantra. Is this the new HD-DVD campain?

So we don't need lossless tracks? Is that it? I read someone saying we also want lossless tracks. But, if DD+ is good enough, why bother including lossless track?

After reading this much of spin, I am about to puke out of disgust. Is this still AVS? No wonder so many have stopped posting here anymore.

The lossless argument is really starting to get old. People seem to want to ignore the fact that most of these lossless/PCM tracks are not 24/48. Instead, they LOSE QUALITY by only being 16/48. So, there is the choice-would you rather lose quality through the lossy compression of a 24/48 track at 1.5mbps, or would you rather be stuck with a 16/48 lossless track. I'll take the Dolby Digital Plus track when given that choice. I would also choose 24/48 lossless/PCM over any of them, as long as the video quality is not affected adversely. If BD-50 is so great, then every BD-50 disc SHOULD have 24/48 (or even 20/48) tracks, but for some reason Sony appears to be sticking to 16/48. Perhaps Sony does not want to indicate the INFERIORITY of all of their BD-25 releases with 16/48 tracks. Or perhaps all those people going on and on about how great the 16/48 tracks are has convinced Sony that 24/48 is unnecessary (I think paidgeek alluded to this).

There are a lot of folks that hold "the best sound" near and dear to their hearts, and if 16/48 PCM becomes the "good enough" for Blu-Ray, I would think they would not be pleased.I am no expert on audio, but please read through this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=718129

I am not pointing to this thread because it is about DTS-HD MA 24/48 audio tracks on BD, but because of very interesting discussion about 16-bit Vs 20/24-bit sources (I think that starts on second page).

Probably, audiophiles don't want to settle for 16/48, and would want 20/48, but that is different from saying DD+ is enough. This is not about Sony sticking to 16/48. It is about someone saying DD+ is good enough.

Let me understand this "DD+ is good enough" mantra. Is this the new HD-DVD campain?

So we don't need lossless tracks? Is that it? I read someone saying we also want lossless tracks. But, if DD+ is good enough, why bother including lossless track?

After reading this much of spin, I am about to puke out of disgust. Is this still AVS? No wonder so many have stopped posting here anymore.

Well how does this read to you ??

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9199710&&#post9199710

b2b

b2bonez - thanks for the link.

It just reminded me that what Roger Dressler actually said is that he couldn't hear a difference between 640k DD and 640k DD+...

Cheers...

Well how does this read to you ??

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9199710&&#post9199710

b2bI don't want to point out people. There are culprits on both sides on different issues.

I wish, for once, HD-DVD supporters would worry more about their format of choice rather than BD. I mean it. Fortunately, I don't worry about HD-DVD, so I shouldn't really mind "DD+ is good enough" mantra as long as it doesn't spread to BD. After all, if HD-DVD people are happy with it who am I to take the joy away?

I would start worrying if some one from BD camp (that mattered) started re-iterating the same mantra. I am feeling much better now!

I'm going to CES and I'll talk to Sharp, Toshiba, Sony and as many others as I can while I'm there. Is there something specific in my planned configuration you have concerns about?

Yes, the timelines of if and when they are ever going to implement the features. A bird in the hand and all that...

I'm actually most interested in the 120Hz LCD technologies. From what I understand, their implementation is aimed more at motion adaptive interpolation to increase frames to 120Hz rather than frame-rate duplication of 24p and 60i/p data. I was rather hoping for the latter rather than the former. I see ways of screwing up interpolation rather than just frame duplication to eliminate judder. My understanding is that they are taking that approach to do something about the perception of motion blur (rather than to eliminate 3:2 pulldown judder)?

I don't want to point out people. There are culprits on both sides on different issues.

I wish, for once, HD-DVD supporters would worry more about their format of choice rather than BD. I mean it. Fortunately, I don't worry about HD-DVD, so I shouldn't really mind "DD+ is good enough" mantra as long as it doesn't spread to BD. After all, if HD-DVD people are happy with it who am I to take the joy away?

I would start worrying if some one from BD camp (that mattered) started re-iterating the same mantra. I am feeling much better now!

With 50GB BD for 75-80% of the the releases the obvious thing for 5.1 is DD @ 640kbs plus LPCM for lossless. No fuss, no muss.

b2b

Let me understand this "DD+ is good enough" mantra. Is this the new HD-DVD campain?

So we don't need lossless tracks? Is that it? I read someone saying we also want lossless tracks. But, if DD+ is good enough, why bother including lossless track?

After reading this much of spin, I am about to puke out of disgust. Is this still AVS? No wonder so many have stopped posting here anymore.

that comes from one of your own fellow "spin doctor" ... i guess he is doing a stupendous job when he even has his own camp confused ;)

the discussion which he extracts that from was related to "perceptually" lossless and ben stating that it may very well be that dd+ at 1.5 would be sufficient to get perceptually lossless in current home theater setups...but in b2b fashion, the phrase was just too catchy and easily used as a negative attribute for him to pass up plastering it all over ;)

but notice none of the typical FUD police railing against this ;)

With 50GB BD for 75-80% of the the releases the obvious thing for 5.1 is DD @ 640kbs plus LPCM for lossless. No fuss, no muss.

b2b

except what doesn't make sense is that the way bd employs dd+ and/or dd-thd, they can get the lossless via dd-thd and the core dd is there for the taking by all dd compatible equipment...seems strange they don't make use of it...

Yes, the timelines of if and when they are ever going to implement the features. A bird in the hand and all that...

I'm actually most interested in the 120Hz LCD technologies. From what I understand, their implementation is aimed more at motion adaptive interpolation to increase frames to 120Hz rather than frame-rate duplication of 24p and 60i/p data. I was rather hoping for the latter rather than the former. I see ways of screwing up interpolation rather than just frame duplication to eliminate judder. My understanding is that they are taking that approach to do something about the perception of motion blur (rather than to eliminate 3:2 pulldown judder)?

Agreed, I know that ultimately I'm depending on Toshiba and Sony to deliver on their 1080p24 software updates.

As for the Sharp LCD, I'm hoping that I get good news at CES and that they will have the option of supporting 5x frame replication of content at 1080p24. If not, there are other display manufacturers at the show. The sole reason I'm going is for a final look and review of the various products I plan to buy before I spend my money. ;)

i knew there would be links...

but, without clicking through your link (i don't have time; and i recall living it once, reliving that period won't be good :) )
except what doesn't make sense is that the way bd employs dd+ and/or dd-thd, they can get the lossless via dd-thd and the core dd is there for the taking by all dd compatible equipment...seems strange they don't make use of it...

Rogers comments explain how it all works when you get past 5.1 for both formats and I'm not going to "re-live" that thread either. :)

It's all there for the reading for those who are inclined to pursue it... ;)

b2b

that comes from one of your own fellow "spin doctor" ... i guess he is doing a stupendous job when he even has his own camp confused ;)

the discussion which he extracts that from was related to "perceptually" lossless and ben stating that it may very well be that dd+ at 1.5 would be sufficient to get perceptually lossless in current home theater setups...but in b2b fashion, the phrase was just too catchy and easily used as a negative attribute for him to pass up plastering it all over ;)

but notice none of the typical FUD police railing against this ;)It is easy to point at b2b, isn't it? No I was not confused about what he said. And I am not confused about what Ben said either! :)

By the way, here is the way I think:
1. Video: I want lossless -> Neither format can support that -> Okay, I will settle for "perceptually lossless", and trust the compressionists' judgment.

2. Audio: I want lossless -> It is possible on both formats -> Why should I settle for less? It doesn't matter what my setup is. It can change. What is on disc cannot.

IMO, only reason lossless audio should not be considered is when it would eat away from space/bandwidth to affect video quality. It should not be the case on BD50; it may very well be the case on BD25 (space) and HD30 (both space and bandwidth). Now wait a miinute, is that why Ben is saying what he is saying? :) j/k.

It is easy to point at b2b, isn't it? No I was not confused about what he said. And I am not confused about what Ben said either! :)

By the way, here is the way I think:
1. Video: I want lossless -> Neither format can support that -> Okay, I will settle for "perceptually lossless", and trust the compressionists' judgment.

2. Audio: I want lossless -> It is possible on both formats -> Why should I settle for less? It doesn't matter what my setup is. It can change. What is on disc cannot.

IMO, only reason lossless audio should not be considered is when it would eat away from space/bandwidth to affect video quality. It should not be the case on BD50; it may very well be the case on BD25 (space) and HD30 (both space and bandwidth). Now wait a miinute, is that why Ben is saying what he is saying? :) j/k.

i wouldn't argue with the highlighted portion; makes sense...but the studios aren't making decisions on whether to include lossless based only on bandwidth/space...there are other circumstances controlling their decisions.

there are also instances where lossless would be pointless :) where the audio just doesn't deserve the treatment...as i've said before.

we've even had comments by filmmixer along these lines and it is his business/profession.

look, anything can be done to the extreme, but life is often not about the extremes...

i wouldn't argue with the highlighted portion; makes sense...but the studios aren't making decisions on whether to include lossless based only on bandwidth/space...there are other circumstances controlling their decisions.

there are also instances where lossless would be pointless :) where the audio just doesn't deserve the treatment...as i've said before.

we've even had comments by filmmixer along these lines and it is his business/profession.

look, anything can be done to the extreme, but life is often not about the extremes...I would agree with the practicality of the things; they are importnat too. But won't agree if someone comes to me and says "Here, take this DD+. It is good enough" when I could have lossless. If someone says that, that would be dishonest. DTrueHD, DTS-HD MA and LPCM are included in the formats for a reason. TrueHD 2.0 is even mandatory on HD-DVD. If DD+ was good enough, they could have saved bunch of money on each player. So I would guess it is not good enough.

Anyway, I think I have nothing more to add in this discussion. Feels like beating a dead horse. Sorry for dragging this thread.

By the way, here is the way I think:
1. Video: I want lossless -> Neither format can support that -> Okay, I will settle for "perceptually lossless", and trust the compressionists' judgment.

2. Audio: I want lossless -> It is possible on both formats -> Why should I settle for less? It doesn't matter what my setup is. It can change. What is on disc cannot.

IMO, only reason lossless audio should not be considered is when it would eat away from space/bandwidth to affect video quality. It should not be the case on BD50; it may very well be the case on BD25 (space) and HD30 (both space and bandwidth).
Great points

When we cram 50GB of data on a palm-sized disc and it is being read at 50Mbps by a blue laser, saying that "life is not about extremes" is drivel. It doesn't have to be, agreed. But great AV engineering is all about reaching extremes that enable real-to-life sensory experiences.

In five years, "DD+ is good enough" claimants will look back and wonder "was i ever that young?" And yes, BD will still be around. As will HD probably.

When we cram 50GB of data on a palm-sized disc and it is being read at 50Mbps by a blue laser, saying that "life is not about extremes" is drivel. It doesn't have to be, agreed. But great AV engineering is all about reaching extremes that enable real-to-life sensory experiences.

In five years, "DD+ is good enough" claimants will look back and wonder "was i ever that young?" And yes, BD will still be around. As will HD probably.

talk abou drivel...you manage to redefine the word with each of your posts ;)

save the motivational/inspirational/multi-colored speeches for, well i don't know who for...

It is easy to point at b2b, isn't it? No I was not confused about what he said. And I am not confused about what Ben said either! :)

By the way, here is the way I think:
1. Video: I want lossless -> Neither format can support that -> Okay, I will settle for "perceptually lossless", and trust the compressionists' judgment.

2. Audio: I want lossless -> It is possible on both formats -> Why should I settle for less? It doesn't matter what my setup is. It can change. What is on disc cannot.

IMO, only reason lossless audio should not be considered is when it would eat away from space/bandwidth to affect video quality. It should not be the case on BD50; it may very well be the case on BD25 (space) and HD30 (both space and bandwidth). Now wait a miinute, is that why Ben is saying what he is saying? :) j/k.

Well if you want to be confused take a peek at this...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9240628&&#post9240628

Very long and convoluted, but I think what it sez is.... DD+ is "good enough"... :)

b2b

Well if you want to be confused take a peek at this...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9240628&&#post9240628

Very long and convoluted, but I think what it sez is.... DD+ is "good enough"... :)

b2b
I am saying for a lot of people it is more than enough ;). And for folks who don't even have a decent audio, we might include a pair of dixie cups and that should satisfy them just the same. :D

To set the record straight, the discussion was around 1.5 mbit/sec lossy, not generic "DD+" is enough. And it was not format specific.

I'm actually most interested in the 120Hz LCD technologies. From what I understand, their implementation is aimed more at motion adaptive interpolation to increase frames to 120Hz rather than frame-rate duplication of 24p and 60i/p data. I was rather hoping for the latter rather than the former. I see ways of screwing up interpolation rather than just frame duplication to eliminate judder. My understanding is that they are taking that approach to do something about the perception of motion blur (rather than to eliminate 3:2 pulldown judder)?
Good post. I too am worried that 120hz is an internal feature for temporal filtering/interpolation which is very hard to do well in consumer products. Would love to see native 24p input on it.

The rate of inclusion for 24p on displays will drive the level of support in players of either format, just as 1080p did.

I am saying for a lot of people it is more than enough ;). And for folks who don't even have a decent audio, we might include a pair of dixie cups and that should satisfy them just the same. :D

To set the record straight, the discussion was around 1.5 mbit/sec lossy, not generic "DD+" is enough. And it was not format specific.
Well I went back an re-read it again.
So yes, I am one of the few that thinks 2.0 lossless made a lot of sense as I want that for pure stereo music tracks (I am not a big fan of surrond music). For movies, I am very satisfied with 1.5 mbit/sec lossy.

Putting my marketing hat on though, would mean pushing for lossless 5.1 because people think it is better. And since our job is to satisfy your needs, precieved or otherwise, you see why we are busy to make sure this support is more widespread on the titles.

First you say you are "very satisfied with 1.5 mbit/sec lossy" and then you say you are busy working for lossless to be "more widespread on the titles".

Unless MS is doing audio consulting work for BD titles, then I would assume you are speaking of HD-DVD titles, no ?

b2b

It is easy to point at b2b, isn't it? No I was not confused about what he said. And I am not confused about what Ben said either!...
Well if you want to be confused take a peek at this...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9240628&&#post9240628

Very long and convoluted, but I think what it sez is.... DD+ is "good enough"... :)

b2b

b2b, just want to clarify. What I meant was that you are an easy target since you are a very vocal BD supporter even if you are not at fault (at least in this case :)). I understood what you were saying. Sorry if my language was not clear enough.

Anyway, I am not going to write more on this in this thread because all we will hear is some more spin from MS et al.

[PS: Originally I intended this to be a PM. But what the heck.]

Well I went back an re-read it again.
Good.

First you say you are "very satisfied with 1.5 mbit/sec lossy" and then you say you are busy working for lossless to be "more widespread on the titles".
OK, so you read the post twice and are still summarizing it incorrectly. I said I was satisfied with 1.5 for movies. Not for all things.

And I explained why we were pushing for more support for lossless. That support is needed for both real and preceived (read marketing) reasons. The latter of course, is more important for readers of this forum, than general public.

Unless MS is doing audio consulting work for BD titles, then I would assume you are speaking of HD-DVD titles, no ?

b2b
No strictly. Our work here is to improve the toolset, working closely with audio tool makers to create a more optimal encode (as opposed to seperate audio/video encodes used today on both formats). Same process can be used just the same on BD as we have shown with VC-1 encoder. Of coure, our focus first and foremost is to satisfy our HD DVD customers. But same technology can be used for BD. To be honest though, I won't hold my breath for BD as efficient encoding is not a pirority for some of them it seems, given the use of PCM versus Lossless which is available today.

My sentiments exactly. If you could alter the main movie from 24FPS to 60FPS, why not change the secondary PIP window from 60FPS to 24FPS. Who the heck comes up with these priorities anyways?
And yes, what you're describing is absolutely possible.

The optimum long term solution is to do rendering at 120 Hz (5x24 and 2x60) for a perfect judder-free presentation of both. But simply rendering all overlays at 24 Hz is perfectly possible (and can be done without judder for the HDi stuff, via interpolation).

It is easy to point at b2b, isn't it? No I was not confused about what he said. And I am not confused about what Ben said either! :)

By the way, here is the way I think:
1. Video: I want lossless -> Neither format can support that -> Okay, I will settle for "perceptually lossless", and trust the compressionists' judgment.
But we live in a bit-limited world, so lossless has other tradeoffs. Analagos to the DD+ @ 20-bit v. PCM @ 16-bit, would you prefer lossless 8-bit 1080p, or perceptually lossless 12-bit 4K? Around the same bitrates...

2. Audio: I want lossless -> It is possible on both formats -> Why should I settle for less? It doesn't matter what my setup is. It can change. What is on disc cannot.
But you aren't ever going to get lossless. You got through multiple generations of audio processing, including audio watermarking added to the soundtrack before it ever hit the disc. You can have a mathematically encoding, but that's a long way from actually delivering lossless audio, until you get a HDMI port in your head.

What you really want is perfect looking and perfect sounding video and audio, and there are many, many facets to that, and lossy/lossless is actually pretty far down on the list of factors.

I would agree with the practicality of the things; they are importnat too. But won't agree if someone comes to me and says "Here, take this DD+. It is good enough" when I could have lossless. If someone says that, that would be dishonest. DTrueHD, DTS-HD MA and LPCM are included in the formats for a reason. TrueHD 2.0 is even mandatory on HD-DVD. If DD+ was good enough, they could have saved bunch of money on each player. So I would guess it is not good enough.

Question:

Do you want want mathematically lossless over percetpually lossless because

A) You don't think percetually lossless will really be perceptually lossless
B) You want the mental satistfaction of knowing it's really lossless, and not having to worry about A).

But we live in a bit-limited world, so lossless has other tradeoffs (clipped)
And thus the people who prefer BD with its higher capacity and bitrate.

Why let the bit-limited world be more of a burden than it has to be, given that we have a choice? Answer is "no good reason".

Question:

Do you want want mathematically lossless over percetpually lossless because

A) You don't think percetually lossless will really be perceptually lossless
B) You want the mental satistfaction of knowing it's really lossless, and not having to worry about A).Both A & B, actually. Why depend on the quality of lossy compression when lossless is possible? Depending on A means that quality is not guaranteed.

...By the way, here is the way I think:
1. Video: I want lossless -> Neither format can support that -> Okay, I will settle for "perceptually lossless", and trust the compressionists' judgment.

2. Audio: I want lossless -> It is possible on both formats -> Why should I settle for less? It doesn't matter what my setup is. It can change. What is on disc cannot.

IMO, only reason lossless audio should not be considered is when it would eat away from space/bandwidth to affect video quality. It should not be the case on BD50; it may very well be the case on BD25 (space) and HD30 (both space and bandwidth). Now wait a miinute, is that why Ben is saying what he is saying? :) j/k.

Here I kinda agree with you . my own priorities are PQ then AQ.

I want the PQ to be the best it can be to the point of huge diminishing returns, jsut as long as the audio is presented in a high base standard, ie DD+, for most movies. now if its a concert disc or something with a brilliant soundtrack I want that to be faithfully rendered but in most cases give the bits to the PQ until it doesn't matter.

Thats what I like about the newer VC-1 encoders. That point of high PQ until the more bits don't matter is happening with a lower and lower bit rate for the video being allocated.

My feeling is make the video so it is perceptulaly losseless on a huge front projection screen, and then slice up the remaining bits and capacity fro the audio and extras. As long as my audio track is DD+ or above, I don't care.

But we live in a bit-limited world, so lossless has other tradeoffs. Analagos to the DD+ @ 20-bit v. PCM @ 16-bit, would you prefer lossless 8-bit 1080p, or perceptually lossless 12-bit 4K? Around the same bitrates...

If by giving exaggerated video example you are trying to imply the 16-bit vs 20/24-bit audio logic, then don't. I want 20/24-bit lossless. And it is possible. If the source itself is 16/48, I am not stupid enough to ask for 20/48 either.

But you aren't ever going to get lossless. You got through multiple generations of audio processing, including audio watermarking added to the soundtrack before it ever hit the disc. You can have a mathematically encoding, but that's a long way from actually delivering lossless audio, until you get a HDMI port in your head.Before the source goes into the encoder, any processing done is either part of the flow or unavoidable. Let's try to get lossless after that. Just because there was some processing done to the source doesn't mean the rest of the chain should feel free to take away more from what is left!

What you really want is perfect looking and perfect sounding video and audio, and there are many, many facets to that, and lossy/lossless is actually pretty far down on the list of factors.Except that everything before encoding has nothing to do with lossy/lossless of our discussion. As you said, we live in bit-limited world. I want the best that the format can offer.

And thus the people who prefer BD with its higher capacity and bitrate.

Why let the bit-limited world be more of a burden than it has to be, given that we have a choice? Answer is "no good reason".
BD doesn't get us out of being bit-limited, though. We're all in the realm of subjective "good enough" instead of "provably perfect"

Note that those most streneously arguing for BD's theoretical PQ advantage are those who don't have players and can't actually do their own subjective testing.

You only argue about specs when specs are all you have to argue about.

But you aren't ever going to get lossless. You got through multiple generations of audio processing, including audio watermarking added to the soundtrack before it ever hit the disc. You can have a mathematically encoding, but that's a long way from actually delivering lossless audio, until you get a HDMI port in your head.
This is a strawman argument (or whatever fancy name its called by).

It boils down to:
"We can never hear exactly what the musician played in the studio, so lets settle for even less than is technically possible cos, remember, you aren't hearing what you would hear if you were sitting next to the musician.

And since it isnt lossless before encoding, how does lossless matter when encoding?"

I worry when a compressionist says things like that. Ben, do you believe that or is it the party line? Honest query

Both A & B, actually. Why depend on the quality of lossy compression when lossless is possible? Depending on A means that quality is not guaranteed.
And B does :)?

Many's the slip between cup and troth, especially with audio chains.

This is a strawman argument (or whatever fancy name its called by).

It boils down to:
"We can never hear exactly what the musician played in the studio, so lets settle for even less than is technically possible cos, remember, you aren't hearing what you would hear if you were sitting next to the musician.

And since it isnt lossless before encoding, how does lossless matter when encoding?"

I worry when a compressionist says things like that. Ben, do you believe that or is it the party line? Honest query
Information is a "difference that makes a difference"

Data that doesn't make a perceivable difference isn't information, it's just data.

I don't have any direct involvement with the audio side of optical discs, so no, this isn't a party line. Given mandatory TrueHD, if mathematically lossless was a hard consumer requirement, that's be actually advantageous for HD DVD.

I'm just trying to relieve people of sweating over details that won't make any actual difference for them.

BD doesn't get us out of being bit-limited, though. We're all in the realm of subjective "good enough" instead of "provably perfect"

Note that those most streneously arguing for BD's theoretical PQ advantage are those who don't have players and can't actually do their own subjective testing.

You only argue about specs when specs are all you have to argue about.
BD doesn't get us out of that world, true but it gets closer to that goal than HD does.

Let me summarize it with an extreme case: When holograohic comes out and allows lossless 20 channel audio and lossless 4K video at home and has all studios (even if no Universal), I will dump BD so fast it will make my PS3 spin. Until that day, I am with BD for its better specs and more content :)

I dont know what % of spec-arguers dont own players but I hope they will keep arguing against claims such as "more space and bitrate do not matter". They do matter.


Your last statement is categorically untrue and changes the premise of the (unresolved) argument. The argument is About the Fact that "better specs enable better AV experiences". Whether we argue cos we have nothing else to argue about or cos we dont want AVS newcomers to fall for drivel, is besides the point. Perhaps we just love arguing.

And Ben, personally speaking, the moment I see a neutral movie re-encoded for BD50 with the same codec as the HD30 version (I predict in early 2008), I will post so many comparative reviews, people wont wonder about whether specs matter anymore :) [/B]

Information is a "difference that makes a difference"

Data that doesn't make a perceivable difference isn't information, it's just data.

I don't have any direct involvement with the audio side of optical discs, so no, this isn't a party line. Given mandatory TrueHD, if mathematically lossless was a hard consumer requirement, that's be actually advantageous for HD DVD.

I'm just trying to relieve people of sweating over details that won't make any actual difference for them.
Fair enough. I dont disagree that the actual difference may be small but its a non-logical leap to then say (on AVS of all places) that BD's higher specs do not matter. (Not you per se, but whoever has claimed such a thing)

cheers

BD doesn't get us out of that world, true but it gets closer to that goal than HD does.
[B][COLOR=DarkOrange]
But in no meaningful way, though.

BD titles don't look or sound any better at best, and average worse. The quality limits on HD optical media are all about codecs, compressionists, and particularly source materials. We've got loads of real-world evidence than the actual spec constraints don't make a whit of difference as to PQ and AQ.

Practice>Theory

But in no meaningful way, though.

BD titles don't look or sound any better at best, and average worse. The quality limits on HD optical media are all about codecs, compressionists, and particularly source materials. We've got loads of real-world evidence than the actual spec constraints don't make a whit of difference as to PQ and AQ.

Practice>Theory
Not yet in a meaningful way. Big difference between "not yet" and never (chestnut about BD's potential acknowledged pre-emptively).

This meaningful difference does not exist cos neutral studios are either encoding at the same time for both formats OR using different codecs when doing separate encodes.

Like I said, when separate encodes are done of the Same Master, with the Same Codec on a BD50 and a HD30, it will be a wonderful day. That day, practice will catch up with theory.



Think of it this way. Plenty of people bought 720p/1080p TVs well before HD and BD launched. In theory, their TVs were capable of displaying much better content than they were being fed cos of bitrate limitations that existed for OTA and cable. They could have sighed and said "Practice > Theory" and they would have been just as incorrect.

Now, here we are, with an opportunity to aim for the significantly higher bitrate of BD, and we are quibbling.


OR, another way to say it is: We dont know how good BD50 at max bitrate will look until we try it and use a HD30 at its max bitrate as a control, if you will.

Not yet in a meaningful way. Big difference between "not yet" and never (chestnut about potential acknowledged pre-emptively).
Except, with improving encoders, the scope for any difference mattering is shrinking.

This meaningful difference does not exist cos neutral studios are either encoding at the same time for both formats OR using different codecs when doing separate encodes.
It's more that neutral studios don't see any meaningful advantage into reencoding for BD, since it won't look any different.

Remember, BD's ABR and PBR constraints were defined assuming MPEG-2, not advanced codecs.

Agree on both points. As a consumer, I prefer the higher specs, is all I am saying. I am not a AV expert, but higher bitrate sounds good to me.

I am sure it sounds good to studios too, if it means they have to invest less in Codec(s)-optimizations, Shorter encoding-time, Cheaper or Free Codecs (mpeg2 will be free soon, right?) etc.

If the specs were actually defined for MPEg2, consider the specs a wonderful and potentially useable bonus when using VC1 and AVC. But please don't say that bitrate does not matter and Cannot matter for highdef content, once 30mbps has been reached.

But in no meaningful way, though.

BD titles don't look or sound any better at best, and average worse. The quality limits on HD optical media are all about codecs, compressionists, and particularly source materials. We've got loads of real-world evidence than the actual spec constraints don't make a whit of difference as to PQ and AQ.

Practice>Theory

Exactly.

And Ben, personally speaking, the moment I see a neutral movie re-encoded for BD50 with the same codec as the HD30 version (I predict in early 2008), I will post so many comparative reviews, people wont wonder about whether specs matter anymore

Yes, always with the future hopes and dreams. If BD discs being released now don't look better than HD-DVD, why will they start in 2008? Isn't this the most important time for BD to show it's superior?

It seems that so many folks take it as gospel that because BD has more storage and bandwidth that it will deliver a better finished product. Still waiting for the proof on that....looks like I'll be waiting a long time.

If BD discs being released now don't look better than HD-DVD, why will they start in 2008? Isn't this the most important time for BD to show it's superior?
As of now, same encodes or different codecs for different encodes. My estimate is that in 2008 we will see different encodes using same codec for a given title.

I agree now would be a good time for BD to show its superiority but none of the studios are bothering to do separate encodes with the same codec. If I claim that a particular BD-exclusive title (say BHD) looks better than all released HD titles, no one will agree anyways since there is no objective comparison. What's a guy to do? =)



Btw, has anyone compared the same Paramount title with VC1 on HD and mpeg2 on BD against each other?

Based on the insider thread info, Paramount chose mpeg2 for the BD title for reasons besides PQ. I would have thought that since Paramount was willing to spend the money on two separate encodes, BDA could have requested for a max bitrate VC1 encode to demo the advantage of higher bitrate.

So, my guess is that political pressures were at work from the HD side.. only a guess, mind you.

Paidgeek's input on the bitrate issue re PQ:


"(clip) ..compare Black Hawk Down with King Kong. The high bit rate afforded in BD50 for BHD allows good preservation of film grain and sharpness throughout. Look for pulsing of grainy and flattened frames in KK (grainy frames will appear about 2 times per second). This is one manifestation of not having a high enough average bit rate. I am comparing these two titles because they seem to have similar characteristics of film grain and long run times. I have not seen the KK master, but I would not expect to see any of the pulsing there. I think KK looks fine at a distance of 3 picture heights, but you are aking if having a high bit rate can make a difference, and yes, it can."

"They are certainly better positioned to release to HD DVD now"

How? HD-DVD can do both VC-1 and AVC(H.264HP), so how does this make Disney better poised to relaase HD-DVD? I see this as the opposite. The codec is irrelevant. The fact the disc is 50 GB, how's HD-DVD going to do that? Even if we see HD-DVD doing triple layer 45 GB, what about that extra 5 GB ? Will the HD-DVD version just omit the extras such as: commentaries, trailers, etc? Or how about another disc! Darn, now the price just went up! So much for the HD-DVD argument about HD-DVD titles being cheaper on average than Blu-ray. Disney doing VC-1 only proves that the whole "format" war isn't about formats at all but about discs, capacities and support. Neither the HD-DVD camps nor Blu-ray camps have proprietary codecs. It's not Sony vs Microsoft, vs anyone else. In short, any release on HD-DVD or Blu-ray can be done on either disc medium, as long as the disc medium has enough capacity to hold the required data and the streaming data rate doesn't exceed the 30 Mbps HD-DVD limit. The true battle is how efficient the encodes are compared to how much data is used. Both are needed. Had the hare just finished, he'd have won, but the tortoise kept going and eventually won instead. If Sony continues to be complacent, Toshiba will win at a slow and steady pace.

PS
This whole battle between HD-DVD and Blu-ray should've never happened. Had either been the lone disc medium, either would have been fine and good enough. Every single one of you on here knows that very well. If we all were to comment on the very best HD-DVD or the very best Blu-ray release, no one would say they were disappointed in the least. The only thing that will result from this battle is more and more potential customers of HD material not wanting an HD disc. Besides not wanting an HD disc, this will make buyers of HDTVs reluctant to buy an HDTV. Having two formats doesn't make competition better. Both mediums aren't becoming better because they're competing. The longer both types are on the market, the sooner everyone is going to lose interest in either. In the end, there's never going to be a winner, all that can happen is everyone loses. The ultimate defeat is the possibility that after all this, neither side becomes dominant and both die just like Laser Disc did.

Based on the insider thread info, Paramount chose mpeg2 for the BD title for reasons besides PQ. I would have thought that since Paramount was willing to spend the money on two separate encodes, BDA could have requested for a max bitrate VC1 encode to demo the advantage of higher bitrate.
I don't recall any insider explaining the dealings with Paramount. Guesses by people who think they know, yes. But real data, no. And I can say that some of your assumptions in above are incorrect :).

So, my guess is that political pressures were at work from the HD side.. only a guess, mind you.
There were no political pressure at all, wrt to either codec. Paramount started with AVC and then standardized on VC-1 on HD DVD becaue we could show clearly the advantages of our codec. Why they use MPEG-2 will have to remain a mystery until it becomes public some other way, or people read the tea leaves better :).

Not yet in a meaningful way. Big difference between "not yet" and never (chestnut about BD's potential acknowledged pre-emptively).

This meaningful difference does not exist cos neutral studios are either encoding at the same time for both formats OR using different codecs when doing separate encodes.

What if they do and there is no noticeable quality. There is always a level of diminishing return.
A 64k wma file sounds horrible
A 128k sounds much better (noticeable by most people)
A 192K sounds good enough to not negatively affect sales
A 320K sounds slightly better (but at 1.5x the bitrate)
A lossless wma (which ends up around 1000k) sounds so close to 320k that I can't tell the difference is a double blind test. Yes there are subtle differences but I sometimes get wrong which one is lossless.

The point being that maybe in 1 & 0 there will be a difference between a HD30 encode and a BD50 encode but what if you can't tell the difference in a double blind test?

Like I said, when separate encodes are done of the Same Master, with the Same Codec on a BD50 and a HD30, it will be a wonderful day. That day, practice will catch up with theory.[QUOTE]

Or it "could" be an eye opening day when nobody can tell the difference between the 2 encodes. At some point there always is a level when more improvement can't be subjectively measured. Take a film encode it at 30GB, 50GB, 100GB, 200GB, 1000GB. Now display all of them. At some point there is no more improvement. You seem to believe it is at >50GB but the truth maybe it is not.

[QUOTE]OR, another way to say it is: We dont know how good BD50 at max bitrate will look until we try it and use a HD30 at its max bitrate as a control, if you will.

The flip side of that is we don't know how much better (if any) a 80GB format would be. If tomorrow someone released a new format with 80GB disc and a 100Mbps max bitrate would you drop BD support for the "superior" format.

Good.


OK, so you read the post twice and are still summarizing it incorrectly. I said I was satisfied with 1.5 for movies. Not for all things.

And I explained why we were pushing for more support for lossless. That support is needed for both real and preceived (read marketing) reasons. The latter of course, is more important for readers of this forum, than general public.


No strictly. Our work here is to improve the toolset, working closely with audio tool makers to create a more optimal encode (as opposed to seperate audio/video encodes used today on both formats). Same process can be used just the same on BD as we have shown with VC-1 encoder. Of coure, our focus first and foremost is to satisfy our HD DVD customers. But same technology can be used for BD. To be honest though, I won't hold my breath for BD as efficient encoding is not a pirority for some of them it seems, given the use of PCM versus Lossless which is available today.

Well good luck selling DD+ as the primary audio encoding method to "readers of this forum".. :)

If 50GB becomes the preferred BD disc for most titles as mentioned by some insiders, then having to use a lossless codec vs. LPCM is an irrelevant issue. While it is priority due to HD-DVDs lack of bandwidth and storage capacity, with BD it is simply a non-issue.

Those toolsets sound nice, but BD isn't broken by design in the first place... :)

b2b

Paidgeek's input on the bitrate issue re PQ:


"(clip) ..compare Black Hawk Down with King Kong. The high bit rate afforded in BD50 for BHD allows good preservation of film grain and sharpness throughout. Look for pulsing of grainy and flattened frames in KK (grainy frames will appear about 2 times per second). This is one manifestation of not having a high enough average bit rate. I am comparing these two titles because they seem to have similar characteristics of film grain and long run times. I have not seen the KK master, but I would not expect to see any of the pulsing there. I think KK looks fine at a distance of 3 picture heights, but you are aking if having a high bit rate can make a difference, and yes, it can."

Odd considering at least by highdefdigest reviews for the year King Kong was rated as having the best transfer of any HD this year and Black Hawk Down was even in the running for its PQ at all

Odd considering at least by highdefdigest reviews for the year King Kong was rated as having the best transfer of any HD this year and Black Hawk Down was even in the running for its PQ at all

I can't believe they are attacking King Kong for its supposed PQ flaws. I didn't see any defects in it on my 100" screen. Also showed it to a friend on his JVC 52G887. It is simply the best looking HD movie I've seen yet.

IMO, attacking King Kong like this (i.e. read what paidgeek says) will cost that person credibility.

Good luck convincing people that King Kong has terrible PQ.

IMO, attacking King Kong like this (i.e. read what paidgeek says) will cost that person credibility.

I agree 100%

IMO, attacking King Kong like this (i.e. read what paidgeek says) will cost that person credibility.

I agree 100%

*sounds of the HD-DVD villagers as they gather their pitchforks and torches to storm castle "BluRay" *

You guys are a hoot... :D

b2b

While I want an end to the format war as soon as possible and believe Blu-Ray is in a better position with more studio support, if HD-DVD is going to be around, I hope they get HD-45 implemented right away so we can get higher-rate encodes to be used by both formats.

*sounds of the HD-DVD villagers as they gather their pitchforks and torches to storm castle "BluRay" *

You guys are a hoot... :D

b2b

Compared to what, a guy who doesnt own a player in either format spending every day on here making comparisons between the two formats?

if HD-DVD is going to be around, I hope they get HD-45 implemented right away so we can get higher-rate encodes to be used by both formats.

So, you're implying that HD DVD is holding Blu-ray back because the studios are making only one encode for both formats which is supposedly limiting BD because the "least common denominator" is HD DVD.

Well, please answer this: What is stopping Sony from doing pristine, drop-dead-gorgeous, super-duper-bitrate, jaw dropping releases on BD50? Certainly not HD DVD's supposed "limitations".

Not implying it, saying it.

So there are no BD-50 releases worthy? Is that what you're implying?

The trick for HD DVD is just use two 30gb discs for the longer movies, whether needed or not and max the bitrate for the sole purpose of having a higher bitrate than a BD50 can obtain - the hell with efficiency. In other words call BD50's bluff. Now those who have sold their souls to higher specs are in a dilemma - what to do? Two disc HD DVD with better specs or shabby BD50 with worse. Who cares if the video looks exactly the same, its the specs that count. Right?

There's so much FUD here that my head is spinning.

Cheers,

Grant

Agree on both points. As a consumer, I prefer the higher specs, is all I am saying. I am not a AV expert, but higher bitrate sounds good to me.
Right, and that's exactly what a lot of the threads are about - "I don't have any hands on experience, but bigger numbers sound...bigger."

I can't blame you for the expectation, but those of of who ARE AV experts are happy with what HD DVD with VC-1 can do.
'
Ugh, you've forced me to dive into a car analogy. A car that does 180 mph sounds better than one that can do 140 mph, but it's not like any of us are EVER going to be driving that fast on public streets.

Once you get to good enough on one axis, other axes start mattering more. Delivering a great HD video/audio experience is critical to either format. But now it's been well demonstrated that both formats can do fine, it's the other differences that are going to matter to the format war.

The trick for HD DVD is just use two 30gb discs for the longer movies, whether needed or not and max the bitrate for the sole purpose of having a higher bitrate than a BD50 can obtain - the hell with efficiency. In other words call BD50's bluff. Now those who have sold their souls to higher specs are in a dilemma - what to do? Two disc HD DVD with better specs or shabby BD50 with worse. Who cares if the video looks exactly the same, its the specs that count. Right?

There's so much FUD here that my head is spinning.

Cheers,

Grant

I dont think thats even needed, look a BR exclusive titles that are on a BD50 such is Click that is less then 2 hours long. Even with the bitrates cranked up its not putting out quality that would surpass HD DVD

Yes, I figured you'd get the job to try to dismantle my post ;)

The trouble is you can't... all you can add is "I think" and "why not".
Exactly - it's neither been shown nor demonstrated that the PS3 can decode two videos streams at once, which would be necessary in order to be able to do the BD-Live spec.
...


Well, I seem to recall an early demo of the PS3 playing several hi-def streams at once in thumbnail mode. Now if they were 720 or 1080 I dunno. But there were either 9 or 12 of them on the screen, IIRC.

I know of no other details such as if they were being sourced from the hard disk, streamed via ethernet, etc...

I wouldn't be too surpised to see the PS3 able to do 2 streams: one full 1080 HD as well as another lower bit-rate PiP as well.

Not implying it, saying it.

So there are no BD-50 releases worthy? Is that what you're implying?

No, I'm saying if HD DVD is really the least common denominator and it is holding back the dual format studios, then why isn't Sony the absolute KING of PQ since they have NEVER considered supporting HD DVD in the YEARS leading up to the release of the BD50s.

Sony releases should be consistently at the top of the "best titles" list because of all the studios they wouldn't be constrained by HD DVD's specs.

You're assuming, of course, that there is a space/bandwidth limitation on HD DVD that is affecting PQ in a noticable way.

And King Kong is supposed to be proof of it as posted by the BD insider paidgeek (who is a Sony employee) here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9202181&&#post9202181).

Unfortunately, King Kong PQ is actually evidence of the opposite.

I'm planning on buying the 52" d92 from Sharp that has a 120Hz refresh and can apparently accept a 1080p24 input. It's going to be announced at CES and has already shown up on line for pre-order. I'm planning to connect an XA2 that according to Robert in the G2 thread will be software upgradable to 1080p24. I also plan to connect a PS3 which according to Sony will be software upgradable to 1080p24 as well.


Does it just refresh at 120, or can it accept 120 input as well?

The latter would be much more interesting than the former.

The trick for HD DVD is just use two 30gb discs for the longer movies, whether needed or not and max the bitrate for the sole purpose of having a higher bitrate than a BD50 can obtain - the hell with efficiency. In other words call BD50's bluff. Now those who have sold their souls to higher specs are in a dilemma - what to do? Two disc HD DVD with better specs or shabby BD50 with worse. Who cares if the video looks exactly the same, its the specs that count. Right?

There's so much FUD here that my head is spinning.

Cheers,

Grant

That would be impossible to do as BD has a max bit rate of 48mbps vs. HD-DVD @ 30mbps.

HD-DVD running at the max of 30mbps for a 30GB disc = 133 mins of running time.

b2b

It is easy to point at b2b, isn't it? No I was not confused about what he said. And I am not confused about what Ben said either! :)

By the way, here is the way I think:
1. Video: I want lossless -> Neither format can support that -> Okay, I will settle for "perceptually lossless", and trust the compressionists' judgment.

2. Audio: I want lossless -> It is possible on both formats -> Why should I settle for less? It doesn't matter what my setup is. It can change. What is on disc cannot.

IMO, only reason lossless audio should not be considered is when it would eat away from space/bandwidth to affect video quality. It should not be the case on BD50; it may very well be the case on BD25 (space) and HD30 (both space and bandwidth). Now wait a miinute, is that why Ben is saying what he is saying? :) j/k.

Well said.. I agree.

Anyone remember how many X360s sold in 2005? As I recall, they had production issues too (but Time magazine didn't call it a bust ).

Looks like Wii probably has outsold the X360 in their respective first Holiday seasons.

Wouldn't it be funny after all the slams Sony has taken for high price and saddling it with Blu-Ray drive (the albatross which would sink them in the console market) if more PS3s are sold in Nov. and December of 2006 than the number of X360s sold in Nov. and December of 2005?

Well I'd wait for the NPD numbers or some official announcement instead of relying on some web site.

But even if they're short of their original goals, Sony may yet match what the X360 shipped last year.

That would be a good sign for Sony, considering the higher price, higher costs and a generally weaker economy this year compared to last year.

Of course, if that happens, people would say, "But, but, Sony must be losing a ton of money to sell that many consoles, they would have been better off selling only a couple of hundred thousand this Holiday season.!":D

Wouldn't it be funny after all the slams Sony has taken for high price and saddling it with Blu-Ray drive (the albatross which would sink them in the console market) if more PS3s are sold in Nov. and December of 2006 than the number of X360s sold in Nov. and December of 2005?

I think if they only sold that many it wouldn't be funny, it would be disappointing considering their original projections. If the marketing goal of Sony was to sell as many PS3's as Xbox 360's, they may as well get rid of their marketing department since they don't really need one to sell that many.

Hmm, so if X360, which is suppose to be doing great right now (to the point of threatening Playstation's former dominance), sold x units in the first two months of sales and PS3 also sells x units, it's a disappointment?

Despite selling for a higher price and being saddled by the Blu-Ray drive?


OK then. ;)

*sounds of the HD-DVD villagers as they gather their pitchforks and torches to storm castle "BluRay" *

You guys are a hoot... :D

b2b

No, just people getting upset about an overhyped format being hyped yet again. Yep, King Kong looks terrible, now Talladega Nights....wow, that is some awesome stuff!

Baby, are you going to believe me......or your lying eyes? ;)

.....Btw, has anyone compared the same Paramount title with VC1 on HD and mpeg2 on BD against each other?

Sure. If you go to http://www.highdefdigest.com/ you'll find that they did some comparisons between the two. You'll find these comments mostly in the BD reviews of those titles.

Based on the insider thread info, Paramount chose mpeg2 for the BD title for reasons besides PQ. I would have thought that since Paramount was willing to spend the money on two separate encodes, BDA could have requested for a max bitrate VC1 encode to demo the advantage of higher bitrate.

So, my guess is that political pressures were at work from the HD side.. only a guess, mind you.

Since we're coming up with theories with no way of knowing what happened, here's one. Maybe Sony offered Paramount a financial incentive on the BD replication if they used MPEG2.

... Yep, King Kong looks terrible, now Talladega Nights....wow, that is some awesome stuff!...
... ;)We all probably know how to identify MPEG2 artifacts. We don't know much about how to identify artifacts introduced by advanced codecs. Personally, I don't wanna know! For example, ever since I learned about CUE, it ruined the experience on DVDs (also the rainbow effect on DLPs -- I am trying now to train myself not to move my eyes to quickly but it is very difficult on a big screen). I would like to keep the artifacts of advanced codecs a mystery, and enjoy the picture. Sometimes ignorance is a bliss! :)

[By the way, in defense of paidgeek, he didn't say King Kong looked terrible. He compared it with BHD because of amount of grain in both, and to demonstrate an effect of bit-rate in such a case -- in his (expert) opinion. I don't have to take his opinion but I won't ridicule it either.]

*More sounds of pitchforks and torches rattling...* :rolleyes:

No, just people getting upset about an overhyped format being hyped yet again. Yep, King Kong looks terrible, now Talladega Nights....wow, that is some awesome stuff!

Baby, are you going to believe me......or your lying eyes? ;)

Now please point out where the word or impression of KK being "terrible" is mentioned in this quote..
"(clip) ..compare Black Hawk Down with King Kong. The high bit rate afforded in BD50 for BHD allows good preservation of film grain and sharpness throughout. Look for pulsing of grainy and flattened frames in KK (grainy frames will appear about 2 times per second). This is one manifestation of not having a high enough average bit rate. I am comparing these two titles because they seem to have similar characteristics of film grain and long run times. I have not seen the KK master, but I would not expect to see any of the pulsing there. I think KK looks fine at a distance of 3 picture heights, but you are aking if having a high bit rate can make a difference, and yes, it can."

b2b

*More sounds of pitchforks and torches rattling...* :rolleyes:

Now please point out where the word or impression of KK being "terrible" is mentioned in this quote..


b2b


For someone fond of using hyperbole, you seem to have a hard time recognizing it in others. ;)

hy·per·bo·le
–noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Note that I am not actually carying a Pitchfork or a torch. Or did you mean that literally? ;)

Does it just refresh at 120, or can it accept 120 input as well?

The latter would be much more interesting than the former.

No one knows yet, but I tend to doubt it because I don't think that's covered under the HDMI specs. If someone knows otherwise, please correct me.

I'd just really like to see the option to feed in a 1080p24 and get 5x frame replication on the screen. Not 100% sure on that one either, but we'll know on January 8th.

No one knows yet, but I tend to doubt it because I don't think that's covered under the HDMI specs. If someone knows otherwise, please correct me.

I'd just really like to see the option to feed in a 1080p24 and get 5x frame replication on the screen. Not 100% sure on that one either, but we'll know on January 8th.For 24fps material, 72Hz refresh should be perfect. Why do you think 120Hz is required for 24p material? For 30fps material, 60Hz refresh should be perfect, and so would 120Hz. However, having 120Hz refresh would mean that when changing the input from 24p to 60p, the refresh rate will not have to change. Other than that, I don't see real benefit of 120Hz (not that I wouldn't go out and buy it!).

In other words, all the displays that accept 24p and display it at a refresh rate of 48/72/96/120 should work for your requirement.

On the other hand, for NTSC region, the holy grail would be 120p input (IOW, player output) because that is the one that will solve the 24p/60p conflict -- including mixing of the two. But for that we will have to wait for next gen interface. Looking forward to it.

Hmm, so if X360, which is suppose to be doing great right now (to the point of threatening Playstation's former dominance), sold x units in the first two months of sales and PS3 also sells x units, it's a disappointment?

Despite selling for a higher price and being saddled by the Blu-Ray drive?


OK then. ;)

Meaningless comparisons.

Each system so far has sold essentially all it could produce during it's launch period. The only thing you're comparing here is how many systems each company was able to produce during it's launch period. Both MS and Sony were able to produce much less than they projected and less than the market demanded during the holidays.

Now if any one of these consoles couldn't sell out during launch, that would be a bad sign but it doesn't appear to be the case for any of them. Meaningful comparisons will begin next year.

For 24fps material, 72Hz refresh should be perfect. Why do you think 120Hz is required for 24p material? For 30fps material, 60Hz refresh should be perfect, and so would 120Hz. However, having 120Hz refresh would mean that when changing the input from 24p to 60p, the refresh rate will not have to change. Other than that, I don't see real benefit of 120Hz (not that I wouldn't go out and buy it!).

In other words, all the displays that accept 24p and display it at a refresh rate of 48/72/96/120 should work for your requirement.

On the other hand, for NTSC region, the holy grail would be 120p input (IOW, player output) because that is the one that will solve the 24p/60p conflict -- including mixing of the two. But for that we will have to wait for next gen interface. Looking forward to it.

I am interested in the D92 for a number of reasons (size, price, LCD, contrast ratio and others). It happens to support 120Hz refresh which is interesting because I'm hoping to hear on January 8th that it can also support 1080p24 input. If it can't I will look at other display options.

Question for you. Why do you see 120p input as important? Isn't the ability to handle 1080p24 and 1080p60 input sufficient? I understand the value of 1080p120 for computer use, but not much else.

I am interested in the D92 for a number of reasons (size, price, LCD, contrast ratio and others). It happens to support 120Hz refresh which is interesting because I'm hoping to hear on January 8th that it can also support 1080p24 input. If it can't I will look at other display options.I see. I also like D92.

Question for you. Why do you see 120p input as important? Isn't the ability to handle 1080p24 and 1080p60 input sufficient? I understand the value of 1080p120 for computer use, but not much else.Oh, this is for future. I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. As for your question, 120p output will solve the mixing of 24p content with 30i/60p content without degrading the result.

This has nothing to do with this format war. However, if it does come to fruition in the lifetime of these formats, then it will make it easier/possible for HD-DVD as far as judder-less PiP output is concerned (and ease up PiP of Blu-ray on the authoring side). But this is too much to ask.

I see. I also like D92.

Oh, this is for future. I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. As for your question, 120p output will solve the mixing of 24p content with 30i/60p content without degrading the result.

This has nothing to do with this format war. However, if it does come to fruition in the lifetime of these formats, then it will make it easier/possible for HD-DVD as far as judder-less PiP output is concerned (and ease up PiP of Blu-ray on the authoring side). But this is too much to ask.


Ah, I understand your point about 120p. Yes, it would be nice, and I expect we'll see it in the future. But I agree, too much to hope for right now. Something to look forward to in the future.

Well I'd wait for the NPD numbers or some official announcement instead of relying on some web site.

But even if they're short of their original goals, Sony may yet match what the X360 shipped last year.

That would be a good sign for Sony, considering the higher price, higher costs and a generally weaker economy this year compared to last year.

Of course, if that happens, people would say, "But, but, Sony must be losing a ton of money to sell that many consoles, they would have been better off selling only a couple of hundred thousand this Holiday season.!":D

I wouldn't say that personally. I'm all for subsidized players, and there is a benefit to the manufacturers, if they can recover the subsidy in revenue from content sales.

The question though is not if PS3 can match Xbox360 in terms of first 90 days vs first 90days (etc.) sales. The question is can PS3 come from behind to catch an Xbox360 platform with a 1 year head start in sales. To do this, the PS3 needs monthly sales volumes better than the Xbox360. If the PS3 matched Xbox360 sales numbers for the first 12 months of availability, at this time next year, it would still be 1 year behind the Xbox360 in sales. Time marches on and they're still selling Xbox 360s after all.

For the PS3 to catch the Xbox360 it would need to ramp at least at the speed of PS2. That's assuming that the Xbox360 adoption curve does not become steeper. If you look at PS1 vs. N64, when it became clear that Sony had dethrowned Nintendo, the adoption curve on PS1 actually became sharper.

The reason I believe PS3 will loose is that Sony is unable to manufacturer PS3 at these volumes. I believe that by the time they are capable of doing so, it will be too late for the console war.

PS3 vs. PS2 ...... something to watch as the months pass.
http://www.vgcharts.org/usaconscomps.php?name1=PS2&name2=PS3&type=2

PS2 vs. Xbox360
http://www.vgcharts.org/usaconscomps.php?name1=PS2&name2=X360&type=2

PS3 vs. Xbox360.......PS3 curve needs to be steeper than Xbox360 to catch up
http://www.vgcharts.org/usaconscomps.php?name1=PS3&name2=X360&type=2

Look at some of the newer movies for HD DVD where the movie wont play at all unless you have updated your firmware in order to be compatible for U-Control extra features that you may or may not use during the movie.

I’ll be flipping if I hear that because a movie may have some incompatible Live feature that I may not be able to play the movie at all after spending 1k on a player.The only format where that's the case is HD-DVD. Blu-ray movies with BD-Live content will play perfectly fine on Blu-ray players without BD-Live support, you just won't get to use the bonus features requiring BD-Live.

Sony has demonstrated it could manufacture more consoles than any other company. MS for instance depends on contract manufacturers whereas Sony is using at least some plants which they own and operate.

Also, Sony is starting with a much higher user base. Maybe all the PS1 and PS2 owners won't stay loyal. But they have such a big margin that they would have to have massive defections, on the order of tens of millions.

Now, maybe the higher price will deter a lot of them. But MS first set a new bar in pricing and Sony exceeded it.

I only raised the first 45-60 day sales comparisons because some here have alleged that Blu-Ray has irreparably handicapped Sony from ramping up as quickly as Microsoft. Yet if they match the sales volume of MS in this launch period, despite the difficulty of making enough blue laser diodes, Blu-Ray wouldn't have been as much of a disadvantage as people were claiming for the initial ramp.

My contention is that Sony has always pushed the envelope, manufacturing components using unproven processes. That was the case with the EE and GS, as well as Rambus RAM in '99-'00. That was the case with the UMD and the PSP screens a couple of years ago. Yet they had no problems eventually ramping up to meet demand.

If the PS3 could decode two streams at once and therefore be able to do PIP, and therefore be capable of being BD-Live compatible, then I think someone in the BD camp would be up here in a flash to tell everyone.

and

it's neither been shown nor demonstrated that the PS3 can decode two videos streams at once, which would be necessary in order to be able to do the BD-Live spec.That you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't be done. Many writers have covered old demonstrations of the PS3 decoding many streams simultaneously, and Sony engineers have stated very clearly that the PS3 can decode two 40MB/s AVC streams without using all available Cell cores. Why do you continue to insist that the PS3 is incapable when there is abundant evidence it is and your only evidence is the lack of a specific announcement by Sony that it will support BD-Live?
Therefore, I think it's a pretty well-founded conclusion to figure that the PS3 can't do it.Incredibly unfounded. Your continued denial of all evidence to the contrary reeks of desperation.
If they had thought the whole thing through up front, there would have been no need to have two standards - the "second phase", otherwise known as BD-Live, is, IMO, a "tack-on" to try to match the features of HDi.Once again, an opinion completely unsupported by fact. BD has always had a more ambitious interactivity platform than HD-DVD. The only significant interactivity feature BD added after HD-DVD is PiP, and that will soon be mandatory.
So here's what Bluray has ended up with - BD-J, in the currewnt Bluray players, is inferior to HDi.No. Some Blu-ray players don't currently support PiP. This has no bearing on the fact that BD-J is a more capable platform than HDi. The fact that some current BD players may not be able to support PiP features doesn't mean other forms of BD-J content won't be created which runs on all existing players and exceeds what HDi is capable of.
When I use the word obsolete, it's my opinion that it's pretty accurate here....About as accurate as your claim that the PS3 can't decode two streams.
With all the talk about the PS3 and BD-Live compatibility before the launch, most Bluray supporters were very surprised to discover that the PS3 is not BD-Live compatible.Sony not having announced that the PS3 is BD-Live compatible does not imply that the PS3 is not BD-Live compatible.
HDi is better than BD-J. There's no arguing with this, no matter how you try to twist what I have said.Can you provide any unambiguous datapoints to support your claim? And don't say "HDi has PiP, BD-J doesn't, because PiP is a player feature, not a BD-J feature. Same goes for a broadband connection.
Your cheap shot at the xbox is noted. A product that has only been on the market one year is obsolete?He said "Xbox", not "Xbox 360".
LPCM is only on BR discs at all because the BR players were never mandated to be able to decode DD+ or TruHD - don't forget that little detail.No, LPCM is on Blu-ray discs because it provides the best possible sound quality, works on all players with all HDMI connections, and doesn't require paying royalties. And all Blu-ray players can decode DD+ or TrueHD streams, just not necessarily at the original fidelity. Oh, and the vast majority of Blu-ray players can decode TrueHD at full fidelity, while the majority of HD-DVD players can't (since the Xbox 360 add-on can't output lossless sound).

- Talk

The only significant interactivity feature BD added after HD-DVD is PiP, and that will soon be mandatory.
Hey Richard, are you still here? :) How many times did you accuse us of not knowing what we were talking about in our press release last year that BD lacked PiP? And that they followed us in adding this feature?

And talk, would you put your hand on the good book and say that June next year is still the deadline for new mandatory features for BD players? This would be an opportune time to hedge such bets :).

This has no bearing on the fact that BD-J is a more capable platform than HDi.
Maybe one of the capabilities of a technology should be its ability to reach the market before its competitor :).

Sony not having announced that the PS3 is BD-Live compatible does not imply that the PS3 is not BD-Live compatible.
If the box is capable, why not announce the feature then? Is it too hard to impliment BD-Live even in software only machine with a lot of CPU power?

Can you provide any unambiguous datapoints to support your claim?
He doesn't need to. He is not an insider who claimed PS3 would be Live compliant, just to have it not be the case, with no data whatsoever on what happened here.

And don't say "HDi has PiP, BD-J doesn't, because PiP is a player feature, not a BD-J feature. Same goes for a broadband connection.
And BDA thinks there is no need for education on BD profies? Even the people here can't keep it straight as to what is there or is not.

No, LPCM is on Blu-ray discs because it provides the best possible sound quality,
So does lossless compression.

works on all players with all HDMI connections,
So does lossless compression.

and doesn't require paying royalties.
Ah, the truth finally comes out :). So a format that is quite expensive and complicated, requiring significant royalty payments for its users, wants to avoid putting money in someone else's pocket. Nothing wrong with that in course of business, but why would the users be happy about that here?

One day, you want to put these streams on a home server and folks will then pay the price of sending zeros out in the form of PCM data, wasting bandwidth that way and impacting reliability of streams. Hopefully, they won't be thinking that they were penny wise and pound foolish on this choice.

Sony has demonstrated it could manufacture more consoles than any other company. MS for instance depends on contract manufacturers whereas Sony is using at least some plants which they own and operate.

Many of the biggest electronics manufacturer around the world use CMs. I don't see this as a factor either way.

Also, Sony is starting with a much higher user base. Maybe all the PS1 and PS2 owners won't stay loyal. But they have such a big margin that they would have to have massive defections, on the order of tens of millions.

I believe much of the user base will stay on the sidelines with their existing gear. If PS3s are in tight supply and high priced, it's not a good scenario for mass migration.

Now, maybe the higher price will deter a lot of them. But MS first set a new bar in pricing and Sony exceeded it.

Can you explain what you mean?

I only raised the first 45-60 day sales comparisons because some here have alleged that Blu-Ray has irreparably handicapped Sony from ramping up as quickly as Microsoft. Yet if they match the sales volume of MS in this launch period, despite the difficulty of making enough blue laser diodes, Blu-Ray wouldn't have been as much of a disadvantage as people were claiming for the initial ramp.

You have a very valid point, but you are also assuming that Sony can work out the blue laser supply problem as quickly as Microsoft was able to work out their overheat issue. I would suggest that Sony has a much bigger problem on their hands than Microsoft did.

My contention is that Sony has always pushed the envelope, manufacturing components using unproven processes. That was the case with the EE and GS, as well as Rambus RAM in '99-'00. That was the case with the UMD and the PSP screens a couple of years ago. Yet they had no problems eventually ramping up to meet demand.

I would suggest this is a big challenge that they face and to compound their problem they are trying to catch up to a console with a 1 year head start. I personally don't believe they will be able to do it.

Yes, I figured you'd get the job to try to dismantle my post

The trouble is you can't... all you can add is "I think" and "why not".rdjam, your so quick with the attacks but maybe you should look at your own posts which are filled with personal opinion stated as though they were facts.


Exactly - it's neither been shown nor demonstrated that the PS3 can decode two videos streams at once, which would be necessary in order to be able to do the BD-Live spec.I assume that you never heard about that demonstration were the CELL CPU decoded 48 SD video streams at once?


Your "anecdote" that it can decode a video stream at 1.5x speed is totally irrelevant, sinc it's not even 2x, and further, bears no relation to actually decoding 2 separate streams - multitasking/mutlithreading is not said to be a great strength of the Cell processor, due to almost non-existent caches and pipes, etc.The PS3 was made to multi-task and did you ignore the fact that Sony has said that they managed to get two 40 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC HP streams to decode on the PS3? Also just curious why do you believe that decoding two video streams on Blu-ray would require twice the processing power?


With all the talk about the PS3 and BD-Live compatibility before the launch, most Bluray supporters were very surprised to discover that the PS3 is not BD-Live compatible.Why do you state your opinions as facts? For instance can you show me the posts you read which indicated that most Blu-ray supporters were surprised that the PS3 wasn't BD-Live compatible on day one?


Putting more words into my mouth to suit yourself - I said HDi is better than BD-J. There's no arguing with this, no matter how you try to twist what I have said.Actually that is easy to argue with though apparently you believe it is a fact. All I can say is that you might be surprised at how many of your "facts" are disproven next year. Also last I checked asking questions is not twisting words and I find your angry reaction to my question rather interesting since maybe you do believe that HDi can't do everything that BD-J can.


Your cheap shot at the xbox is noted. A product that has only been on the market one year is obsolete?rdjam, the Xbox has been on the market for several years and the Xbox 360 was released last year. Did you forget that?


Call me dishonest if you like - My opinion is that these Bluray players are already obselete, based on BD-Live being the end goal for the BD spec, and the new machines in the pipe for next year that are able to play it. The definitions of the word "obsolete" above would seem to back my opinion up quite nicely...rdjam, the entire point I was making was that you are trying your best to spread fear about Blu-ray by saying that current Blu-ray players are obsolete knowing that many people will not understand what you mean by that. You know quite well that current Blu-ray players will always be able to play Blu-ray movies and that it is only the matter of certain extra features that is in question. It would be easy to make a statement that is less ambiguous and more accurate but that you don't want to do that since it would also be less negative. Of course I am stating the obvious here and maybe your hatred of Blu-ray is so great that you don't really care that you may deceive people with your signature.

Hey Richard, are you still here? How many times did you accuse us of not knowing what we were talking about in our press release last year that BD lacked PiP? And that they followed us in adding this feature?What you stated was that Blu-ray was not capable of PiP and than it was announced shortly afterwards that it was going to be added to Blu-ray. Also from what Keith said, which contradicted your claim that it was a quick addition, it was something being worked on for months before the announcement was made. Also I believe HD DVD was the first format to plan support for PiP and when did I ever say that it wasn't?

say guys could we tone it down a bit?

How about a cease fire for the holidays?

Group hug?

Peace

No one knows yet, but I tend to doubt it because I don't think that's covered under the HDMI specs. If someone knows otherwise, please correct me.

I'd just really like to see the option to feed in a 1080p24 and get 5x frame replication on the screen. Not 100% sure on that one either, but we'll know on January 8th.

Mind if I ask why? My Pearl purportedly does 96, and the Mits HC5000 48, but with a digital-panel based display, those rates are there primarily as biasing techniques to keep the pixels always-on. There's no visible difference, even if it was running at 24hz, if that's what the panel was designed to do (without decay).

I agree that HDMI is not going to do 120... bit that's where it would be MOST useful...

Mind if I ask why? My Pearl purportedly does 96, and the Mits HC5000 48, but with a digital-panel based display, those rates are there primarily as biasing techniques to keep the pixels always-on. There's no visible difference, even if it was running at 24hz, if that's what the panel was designed to do (without decay).

I agree that HDMI is not going to do 120... bit that's where it would be MOST useful...

Be sure to get to CES if you can. 120 can do some very interesting things without being passed over HDMI by using new processing in the display.

The only format where that's the case is HD-DVD. Blu-ray movies with BD-Live content will play perfectly fine on Blu-ray players without BD-Live support, you just won't get to use the bonus features requiring BD-Live.

However, that appears to have been a fix. Unless you are stating that there are NEVER going to be bugs in BD-Video, BD-Live, the BD+ VM, or AACS that will ever cause movie playback issues?

It seems to me that fixing a broken feature is in a different catagory than diliberately not including a feature, no?

IMO, attacking King Kong like this (i.e. read what paidgeek says) will cost that person credibility.

Good luck convincing people that King Kong has terrible PQ.
I couldn't agree more.

It's just more of the same tripe and sour grapes from the Bluray side, as far as I can see.

King Kong is spectacular. When are they going to put their own house in order?...

rdjam, your so quick with the attacks but maybe you should look at your own posts which are filled with personal opinion stated as though they were facts. I assume that you never heard about that demonstration were the CELL CPU decoded 48 SD video streams at once? The PS3 was made to multi-task and did you ignore the fact that Sony has said that they managed to get two 40 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC HP streams to decode on the PS3? Also just curious why do you believe that decoding two video streams on Blu-ray would require twice the processing power? Why do you state your opinions as facts? For instance can you show me the posts you read which indicated that most Blu-ray supporters were surprised that the PS3 wasn't BD-Live compatible on day one? Actually that is easy to argue with though apparently you believe it is a fact. All I can say is that you might be surprised at how many of your "facts" are disproven next year. Also last I checked asking questions is not twisting words and I find your angry reaction to my question rather interesting since maybe you do believe that HDi can't do everything that BD-J can. rdjam, the Xbox has been on the market for several years and the Xbox 360 was released last year. Did you forget that? rdjam, the entire point I was making was that you are trying your best to spread fear about Blu-ray by saying that current Blu-ray players are obsolete knowing that many people will not understand what you mean by that. You know quite well that current Blu-ray players will always be able to play Blu-ray movies and that it is only the matter of certain extra features that is in question. It would be easy to make a statement that is less ambiguous and more accurate but that you don't want to do that since it would also be less negative. Of course I am stating the obvious here and maybe your hatred of Blu-ray is so great that you don't really care that you may deceive people with your signature.
Richard - these super-long posts of your are tiring and a bit more "chest-beating" than helpful.

The Cell chip demoed with the SD streams was not the same version in the PS3. Secondly - your twisting of the truth aside, I have ALWAYS stated it as my opinion and MY conclusion that the PS3 probably can't do BD-Live and PiP.

BTW - the only anger I detect here is in your retorts - I'm quite comfortable taking a sword to the roots of your posts without even the slightest upset ;) There were Bluray fans who claimed that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant - a quick search can turn up examples.

And don't get so upset about me "spreading fear" - I'm simply talking the truth - these first BD players seem to be already obsolete and won't be able to play future Bluray titles to their full potential. No matter how you try, you cannot say that about any of the current HD DVD players. Even the lowly A1 I have on my shelf will always be able to play all HDi content on HD DVD discs, even PiP. The truth hurts, I know...

You don't feel you're deceiving anyone when you make out that BD-Live is the greatest thing since sliced Balogna, yet try to "pooh-pooh" that fact that none of the current standalone players have a chance of playing it? For sooth, for shame, in the words of Daffy Duck... :)

say guys could we tone it down a bit?

How about a cease fire for the holidays?

Group hug?

Peace
Whoops - sorry, got to that one late.

Yes - Group Hug! :p

I couldn't agree more.

It's just more of the same tripe and sour grapes from the Bluray side, as far as I can see.

King Kong is spectacular. When are they going to put their own house in order?...

Titles can look very good overall and still have compression artifacts. There are no HD-DVD titles or BD titles that are artifact free. There are only compressionists that have to work more or less hard to keep those artifacts from calling attention to themselves. Even D5, one of the industry standard HD master formats can generate compression artifacts.

Mind if I ask why? My Pearl purportedly does 96, and the Mits HC5000 48, but with a digital-panel based display, those rates are there primarily as biasing techniques to keep the pixels always-on. There's no visible difference, even if it was running at 24hz, if that's what the panel was designed to do (without decay).

I agree that HDMI is not going to do 120... bit that's where it would be MOST useful...

I don't care if the panel shows 1080p24 at 1x or 5x. It happens to be a 120Hz panel, so I assume they would display each frame 5 times.

Be sure to get to CES if you can. 120 can do some very interesting things without being passed over HDMI by using new processing in the display.

Thanks paidgeek. Any particular booths you would recommend?

Thanks paidgeek. Any particular booths you would recommend?

I would recommend seeing majors doing flat panels (naturally), but be sure to look at the Sony LCD's. They have some new tech that I had an early preview on. It is well worth your time.

And talk, would you put your hand on the good book and say that June next year is still the deadline for new mandatory features for BD players? This would be an opportune time to hedge such bets.I have not heard one word of discussion within or outside of the BDA regarding the possibility of the June date being pushed back.
If the box is capable, why not announce the feature then? Is it too hard to impliment BD-Live even in software only machine with a lot of CPU power?I have no insight as to SCEI's decision process regarding pre-announcing features. However, you undoubtedly have a reasonable understanding of both the BD-Live spec and the PS3. Is there some aspect of the spec which you consider the PS3 unlikely to be capable of supporting?
So a format that is quite expensive and complicated, requiring significant royalty payments for its users, wants to avoid putting money in someone else's pocket. Nothing wrong with that in course of business, but why would the users be happy about that here? Why should they mind? What is the benefit to using TrueHD, which some users won't have access to the full-fidelity stream, if there is space to use LPCM and provide all players access?
One day, you want to put these streams on a home server and folks will then pay the price of sending zeros out in the form of PCM data, wasting bandwidth that way and impacting reliability of streams.Ah, the old Microsoft "PC and Windows as the center of the world" argument. I suspect by the time managed copy is in place and people are routinely shuttling around streams from the original disc (assuming they are even at full fidelity) the extra few Mb/sec of bandwidth LPCM requires over losslessly compressed formats won't make a difference between "works" and "doesn't work".

- Talk

However, that appears to have been a fix. Unless you are stating that there are NEVER going to be bugs in BD-Video, BD-Live, the BD+ VM, or AACS that will ever cause movie playback issues?

It seems to me that fixing a broken feature is in a different catagory than diliberately not including a feature, no?It's very poor planning if a movie is authored in such a way that it simply can't be played on non-updated firmware. That's what testing is for; if there's a firmware bug, disable a given feature until the firmware bug is fixed. But don't make the whole movie unplayable (as has been reported with some HD-DVD titles on some platforms).

I have ALWAYS stated it as my opinion and MY conclusion that the PS3 probably can't do BD-Live and PiP.What feature of BD-Live exactly are you claiming the PS3 won't be able to support? PiP?
I'm simply talking the truth - these first BD players seem to be already obsolete and won't be able to play future Bluray titles to their full potential. No matter how you try, you cannot say that about any of the current HD DVD players. Even the lowly A1 I have on my shelf will always be able to play all HDi content on HD DVD discs, even PiP.You say now. You don't think that the performance levels of HD-DVD players will go up over time (assuming the format survives), with some future content dependent on that higher performance level to work? Hell, the Tokyo Drift interactivity acts differently on a PC than on the A1 (you can have more features on-screen at once on the PC due to the higher level of performance), meaning you already have features not available on the A1.

If I accept your argument that some BD players are already obsolete, you have to accept my argument that your whole format is already obsolete (given some titles are already maxing out the format capabilities within the first six months of the format).

Ah, the old Microsoft "PC and Windows as the center of the world" argument.
Ah, the old "Sun hates Microsoft because Microsoft is evil" argument. :p

BTW, Talk8r, I notice you've changed your sig about Bluray outselling HD DVD (snigger) Is "good enough" the next Bluray marketing push? It's nice to see that while Bluray hardliners are reproaching HD fans for mentioning BR, BR fans have no problem with the reverse... :p

It's very poor planning if a movie is authored in such a way that it simply can't be played on non-updated firmware. That's what testing is for; if there's a firmware bug, disable a given feature until the firmware bug is fixed. But don't make the whole movie unplayable (as has been reported with some HD-DVD titles on some platforms).
That's rather disingenuous.

As people do more things with the code, it's only natural that some bugs may be discovered and fixed.

That is totally different from coming up with a stopgap specification for launch (BDJ) and migrating to your "this is really it this time" spec a year later (or six months later if you believe Sony that Bluray only launched in November)...

No fix on the planet will help these standalone BD players be able to perform BD-Live... it is the definition of obsolescence.

Your use of "poor planning" is very ironic, given the inability to plan ONE spec in time for the Bluray launch...

I hate to bring this up, but do any of the HD-DVD players do anything with the ethernet port other than download patches yet ?? In otherwords, is there any 'HDi-Live" applications on any current or planned disc titles yet ??

b2b

Hasn't heard or seen what's available, for that matter. Looks like it's not stopping him from being the "expert" on all of it, though. ;)

If this is what it takes to be an "expert" on HD-DVD, then "Thanks, but no thanks".... ;)
I hate to fall in with the crowd, but I'm going to have to disagree with the original poster. I own both A1 and A2. The A1 sits unhooked on my workbench while the A2 gets all the love. Some day the A1 will find a new home in the bedroom but at this point I don't miss it one bit.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9244657&&#post9244657

b2b

these first BD players seem to be already obsolete and won't be able to play future Bluray titles to their full potential.
The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.

Ron

The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.

Ron

Huh? Future HD DVD players won't be able to play current HD DVDs?

I don't care if the panel shows 1080p24 at 1x or 5x. It happens to be a 120Hz panel, so I assume they would display each frame 5 times.

Fair enough... I was only wondering if the refresh was a strong selling point for you, or if it was just that it would "properly" handle 24p.

Thanks.

It's very poor planning if a movie is authored in such a way that it simply can't be played on non-updated firmware. That's what testing is for; if there's a firmware bug, disable a given feature until the firmware bug is fixed. But don't make the whole movie unplayable (as has been reported with some HD-DVD titles on some platforms).

I agree that I'd certainly hope to see sufficient testing so that the "Stick the disc in and hit Play" model isn't ever broken. I'll agree with you there.

However, I'll ask again: are you going to guarantee we'll never see a BD-J bug that affects a movie? My understanding is that most of the title menuing systems today are movie-mode, no? So as BD-J comes online, you state there's ever going to be a bug that makes displaying the initial menu to play the movie a problem?

I'm asking because you previoulsy cast the Toshiba supplied firmware fix and the Sony announced firmware fix iv [b]VERY]/b] different lights, and refused to answer me regaridng why even though I asked you twice.

I hate to bring this up, but do any of the HD-DVD players do anything with the ethernet port other than download patches yet ?? In otherwords, is there any 'HDi-Live" applications on any current or planned disc titles yet ??

b2b

I think the correct answer to this is: There are no titles that yet do anything with the ethernet port.

I've seen no announcements similar to Pioneer's that indicate the network port will not be usable by titles that choose to do so.

The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.

Ron

Care to expand?

You may want to clarify "their"... are you referring to the titles or the plaers?

In either case, this seems an unusual statement. Everbody tends to agree that the nature of the progression is that later players will be a superset of earlier functionality.

Ok, I didn't read every single post in the 15 pages here, but I am interested in how this is all going to shake-out as I debate the issue of how much money to actually spend on new discs and look sadly on my significant DVD collection wondering when exactly I'll give them away as I have done with all the old VHS tapes....

While the discussion here is lively and interesting, out in the "real world", I can't believe that it will actually come down to who has the 'better' (from a technical perspective) product. The market will decide which format(s) survive, and as every business person knows, the market does not always choose the 'best' technical product.

We have a Toshiba HD-A2 and a PS3 and we enjoy the picture on both. I've bought around 8 HD-DVDs and have Talledega Nights BD which came with the PS3.

I see two advantages the HD-DVD has in the market: 1- The price point on the player appears to be lower. 2- They kept the word "DVD" in the name which may help the average user feel they are 'upgrading' what they have, rather than buying something 'new' and 'different'.

That being said, I see more advertising for the BD here in the NYC suburbs. Anyone else?

Forgetting which is 'better' for the moment -- who will win the marketing battle and control market-share, which, IMHO, is the real war...?

say guys could we tone it down a bit?

How about a cease fire for the holidays?

Group hug?

Peacehttp://www.ambridge.k12.pa.us/steeldrums/pictures/0506/leaf%20festival/Group%20Hug.JPG

Be sure to get to CES if you can. 120 can do some very interesting things without being passed over HDMI by using new processing in the display. I'll be at CES.

Things I should look for regarding the HD DVD Blu-ray format war and the 120 display technologies? & of course the majors booths..

However, I'll ask again: are you going to guarantee we'll never see a BD-J bug that affects a movie? My understanding is that most of the title menuing systems today are movie-mode, no? So as BD-J comes online, you state there's ever going to be a bug that makes displaying the initial menu to play the movie a problem?I'm in no position to guarantee that. However, I'm not aware of any title which doesn't work on all players. I think it's unlikely we'll see a future title which doesn't work on all players. There may well be individual features which don't work (by design or due to a bug), but I fully expect the movie itself will always work.
I'm asking because you previoulsy cast the Toshiba supplied firmware fix and the Sony announced firmware fix iv [b]VERY]/b] different lights, and refused to answer me regaridng why even though I asked you twice.The firmware updates may in fact be analogous, but until we know what's in Sony's update we can only speculate.

I have not heard one word of discussion within or outside of the BDA regarding the possibility of the June date being pushed back.
Not even one word, ha? Maybe folks wanted you to have a nice and relaxing Xmas holiday. :D

The hits just keep on coming...BD-J is the king of comedy. :D

I have no insight as to SCEI's decision process regarding pre-announcing features.
That's fair. I hope you also agree that if one is in this situation, one should not keep mentioning PS3 as proof point of BD-Live, weeks before it comes out to market.

However, you undoubtedly have a reasonable understanding of both the BD-Live spec and the PS3. Is there some aspect of the spec which you consider the PS3 unlikely to be capable of supporting?
No concrete info. The only trouble area would be dual HD decode of AVC at high rate if that is part of the spec.

But perhaps the bigger reason for lack of support right now is the shear amount of testing and development needed, versus getting the console working. It is not like there were a bunch of titles with such capability needing support right now. In my opinion, they made the right call in not supporting BD-Live in PS3 (however, I feel the opposite for their stand-alone products). If I were them and no other BD player supported any of this stuff, I would not try to get too far ahead of the game. I was always surprised to read your posts indicating support would be there day one.

Why should they mind? What is the benefit to using TrueHD, which some users won't have access to the full-fidelity stream, if there is space to use LPCM and provide all players access?
As long as BD-25 is in play, then PCM is a big tax on a format that is smaller than HD DVD-30. And then there are people asking for multiple lossless tracks. How does one do that with PCM audio, and yet maintain an advantage over HD DVD-30 with its much higher usage of advanced audio/video codecs?

Ah, the old Microsoft "PC and Windows as the center of the world" argument. I suspect by the time managed copy is in place and people are routinely shuttling around streams from the original disc (assuming they are even at full fidelity) the extra few Mb/sec of bandwidth LPCM requires over losslessly compressed formats won't make a difference between "works" and "doesn't work".

- Talk
A few mb/sec? PCM audio for 5.1 takes up as much bandwidth as a streaming a normal DVD with audio and video combined! And of course, wastes as much storage on servers. Since many discs won't be re-authored, no improvement will come in the future on this front.

say guys could we tone it down a bit?

How about a cease fire for the holidays?I certainly wouldn't mind having a more peaceful tone to the debates between me and rdjam but honestly it is very hard to be nice to someone that is rude to you.


Richard - these super-long posts of your are tiring and a bit more "chest-beating" than helpful.Usually in a debate it is not unexpected to ask for evidence or at the very least an explanation for why someone believes something.


The Cell chip demoed with the SD streams was not the same version in the PS3. Okay, what were the differences between the CELL chip used in the demonstration and the one used in the PS3? I know that in the demonstration it used 6 SPEs for decoding with another SPE used for scaling. The GHz rating might have been a bit higher on the one used in that demonstration but I never read any article which actually said that. Also my point was that the PS3 CPU can handle the decoding of multiple video streams. Do you believe that it can't?


Secondly - your twisting of the truth aside, I have ALWAYS stated it as my opinion and MY conclusion that the PS3 probably can't do BD-Live and PiP.rdjam, questioning why you believe something is not "twisting of the truth" and I was only trying to understand why you believe so strongly that the PS3 can't handle PiP decoding with Blu-ray.


There were Bluray fans who claimed that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant - a quick search can turn up examples.Okay, but I still think it was an exaggeration for you to say that most Blu-ray supporters were disappointed that the PS3 was not BD-Live compliant on day one. After all from what you now say it was only a few Blu-ray fans who believed that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant. Also how many of them actually expected it to be so on day one?


And don't get so upset about me "spreading fear" - I'm simply talking the truth - these first BD players seem to be already obsolete and won't be able to play future Bluray titles to their full potential.Careful throwing around the term obsolete since if Blu-ray discs start having interactivity that can't be done with HD DVD you might have that term thrown back at you.


Even the lowly A1 I have on my shelf will always be able to play all HDi content on HD DVD discs, even PiP. The truth hurts, I know...Not at all, the truth cuts both ways and if BD-J can do more than what HDi can do than perhaps the truth will hurt HD DVD more than it will hurt Blu-ray. We will see.


You don't feel you're deceiving anyone when you make out that BD-Live is the greatest thing since sliced Balogna, yet try to "pooh-pooh" that fact that none of the current standalone players have a chance of playing it?You forget about the PS3. Also what I dislike is when HD DVD supporters use the existence of the BD-Live profile as an excuse to attack Blu-ray as a format. The fact that BD-Live has higher requirements for PiP and persistent storage than HD DVD is something that they rarely mention.

PS3s Being Traded for Wiis (http://gigagamez.com/2006/12/22/ps3s-being-traded-for-wiis/)

Don't they know the PS3 can play Blu-ray movies?

Not even one word, ha? Maybe folks wanted you to have a nice and relaxing Xmas holiday.Amir, instead of making vague statements about this issue wouldn't it be easier just to tell us which companies are going against the addition of PiP to the BD-Video specs for June of next year? Also could you give us a number on a scale of 1 to 10 how likely you think that the date will be changed (with 1 being improbable and 10 being guaranteed)?

I'll buy a Wii and trade it even for anybody's PS3;
It's a tough order, but I'll make the sacrifice...

ken

That's fair. I hope you also agree that if one is in this situation, one should not keep mentioning PS3 as proof point of BD-Live, weeks before it comes out to market.


No concrete info. The only trouble area would be dual HD decode of AVC at high rate if that is part of the spec.

But perhaps the bigger reason for lack of support right now is the shear amount of testing and development needed, versus getting the console working. It is not like there were a bunch of titles with such capability needing support right now. In my opinion, they made the right call in not supporting BD-Live in PS3 (however, I feel the opposite for their stand-alone products). If I were them and no other BD player supported any of this stuff, I would not try to get too far ahead of the game. I was always surprised to read your posts indicating support would be there day one.


As long as BD-25 is in play, then PCM is a big tax on a format that is smaller than HD DVD-30. And then there are people asking for multiple lossless tracks. How does one do that with PCM audio, and yet maintain an advantage over HD DVD-30 with its much higher usage of advanced audio/video codecs?


A few mb/sec? PCM audio for 5.1 takes up as much bandwidth as a streaming a normal DVD with audio and video combined! And of course, wastes as much storage on servers. Since many discs won't be re-authored, no improvement will come in the future on this front.

Where is "HDi-Live" ? Toshiba players support it (I assume) and so does the Xb360 (again assume).

There has been this steady stream of condemnation about the status of BD-Live. So where is the equivalent in HD-DVD ?? From what I have seen it is still MIA too...

b2b

I don't recall any insider explaining the dealings with Paramount. Guesses by people who think they know, yes. But real data, no. And I can say that some of your assumptions in above are incorrect :).
Amir, it was actually 2 of your posts in the Insiders' thread that conveyed to me and others that PQ was not the reason for MPEG2 being chosen by Paramount (see here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9114399&&#post9114399) and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9156207&&#post9156207) for 2 such posts of yours).


Did I misunderstand your posts? Here is my post in reply to which you said that an assumption of mine is wrong:

"Based on the insider thread info, Paramount chose mpeg2 for the BD title for reasons besides PQ. I would have thought that since Paramount was willing to spend the money on two separate encodes, BDA could have requested for a max bitrate VC1 encode to demo the advantage of higher bitrate."



To re-iterate, you said in the Insiders thread (or I understood you to have said) that PQ was not the reason (see above 2 links).

Now, when I wrote as much in this thread, you say no insider explained dealings with Paramount. Besides PQ, the other "assumption" of mine in the quoted post is that of financial incentives.

That is actually based on insider info from Penton-man. Check here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9162739&&#post9162739) for a post by Penton on the subject of absence of financial incentives for Paramount to use MPEG2. Penton also mentioned that Paramount was motivated by PQ. One of you is incorrect..



Other insiders reading this (including Penton and Paidgeek): Did Paramount choose MPEg2 for PQ or not for PQ? An honest query :)

The flip side of that is we don't know how much better (if any) a 80GB format would be. If tomorrow someone released a new format with 80GB disc and a 100Mbps max bitrate would you drop BD support for the "superior" format.
Yes, I would if they had as much content as BD does, lined up behind them. I would love it. Why fight against higher bitrate when it costs me the same as a consumer? Hallelujah, bring it on, I say.

I wrote as much in a very recent post using holographic media as an extreme example. But it applies to a 80GB with 100Mbps bitrate media too. To reiterate, I prefer BD due to the higher specs and would love a higher spec format even more, content and cost (to me) being the same.

(clip)Good luck convincing people that King Kong has terrible PQ.
I dont think Paidgeek said KK has "terrible" PQ. He said pulsing can be seen at less then certain distance from screen.

For all those who have not read the original post by Paidgeek, he did not say KK had terrible PQ. This is a gross misinterpretation or misprepresentation of his words.

Right, and that's exactly what a lot of the threads are about - "I don't have any hands on experience, but bigger numbers sound...bigger."

I can't blame you for the expectation, but those of of who ARE AV experts are happy with what HD DVD with VC-1 can do.
'
Ugh, you've forced me to dive into a car analogy. A car that does 180 mph sounds better than one that can do 140 mph, but it's not like any of us are EVER going to be driving that fast on public streets.

Once you get to good enough on one axis, other axes start mattering more. Delivering a great HD video/audio experience is critical to either format. But now it's been well demonstrated that both formats can do fine, it's the other differences that are going to matter to the format war.
Bigger numbers sound good to me cos they imply possibly better P&A Q.
They dont sound "bigger" =) I am not daft.

Ben, with all due respect, I cannot accept the opinion of a non format-agnostic person. I have the greatest respect for VC1 as a codec, but there are other AV experts who just as confidently reckon that higher bitrate can be used profitably.

Either way, if it costs me the same, has more content and potentially better PQ, why not support BD, is the way I see it.

No, just people getting upset about an overhyped format being hyped yet again. Yep, King Kong looks terrible, now Talladega Nights....wow, that is some awesome stuff!

Baby, are you going to believe me......or your lying eyes? ;)
2channel, Paidgeek did Not say KK looks terrible. Please check his post for specifics and his qualifiers. Seriously, its very clear that he did not say KK looks terrible.

Sure. If you go to http://www.highdefdigest.com/ you'll find that they did some comparisons between the two. You'll find these comments mostly in the BD reviews of those titles.

Since we're coming up with theories with no way of knowing what happened, here's one. Maybe Sony offered Paramount a financial incentive on the BD replication if they used MPEG2.
thanks for the link, man.

Dude, based on the Insiders' thread, it was stated there, as fact:

1. No financial incentive was offered to Paramount for using MPEg2 (posted by Penton-man here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9162739&&#post9162739) )

2. The reasons Paramount chose MPEG2 for BD instead of the VC1 encode of HD-DVD was not cos of PQ (posted by Amir here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9114399&&#post9114399) and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9156207&&#post9156207) )

I am quite confused now cos Amir just stated a seemingly opposite comment in this thread above.

Amir, you out there, dude?

Why should they mind? What is the benefit to using TrueHD, which some users won't have access to the full-fidelity stream, if there is space to use LPCM and provide all players access? As long as BD-25 is in play, then PCM is a big tax on a format that is smaller than HD DVD-30. And then there are people asking for multiple lossless tracks. How does one do that with PCM audio, and yet maintain an advantage over HD DVD-30 with its much higher usage of advanced audio/video codecs? As long as the vast majority of Blu-ray releases are SL25 discs, LPCM is a disadvantage because it a space hog on a disc that has a lower capacity than the HD DVD standard of DL 30GB disc.

When the majority of Blu-ray discs are DL releases the situation will change , not before.

As long as the vast majority of Blu-ray releases are SL25 discs, LPCM is a disadvantage because it a space hog on a disc that has a lower capacity than the HD DVD standard of DL 30GB disc.

When the majority of Blu-ray discs are DL releases the situation will change , not before.

Word is that 75-80% of all BD discs (at least from SPHE) will be BD-50GB..

MPEG2 + LPCM on BD25 was never a really bright idea in the first place. In retrospect I would imagine they wished the had just done DD only and dealt with a lower lever of complaints on audio vs video. HD-DVD doesn't have that many lossless titles and before the FW upgrade none of the Tosh players could deliver 5.1 lossless.

b2b

I'll buy a Wii and trade it even for anybody's PS3;
It's a tough order, but I'll make the sacrifice...

ken
Me too. It rents me heart but I cant deny all those Wii-lovers out there. I also have an old xbox they can trade me for a 360. Generous to a fault, thats moi.

The only trouble area would be dual HD decode of AVC at high rate if that is part of the spec.The overall bandwidth limits still apply, so you'd have an absolute max of 48Mb/sec AVC. If, as reported, the PS3 can handle 40Mb/sec with 3 CPU units, an additional 20% shouldn't break things (especially given the real possibility they will find a 20%+ improvement in decoding efficiency as algorithms improve).
But perhaps the bigger reason for lack of support right now is the shear amount of testing and development needed, versus getting the console working. It is not like there were a bunch of titles with such capability needing support right now.Agreed. Given that no titles on either format have been announced with network features, I don't think there is urgency about getting support launched (though it would certainly help differentiate from legacy DVD).
I was always surprised to read your posts indicating support would be there day one.I'm certainly open to proof to the contrary, but I believe my posts stated my belief that the PS3 would be capable of BD-Live support, not that it necessarily would be present at launch.
As long as BD-25 is in play, then PCM is a big tax on a format that is smaller than HD DVD-30.I said "if there is space to use PCM". If it's a BD25 with MPEG-2, or the movie is long enough that even with advanced codecs you don't have enough space, then clearly PCM isn't the right solution. But if you've got the space it makes lossless available to everyone.
And then there are people asking for multiple lossless tracks. How does one do that with PCM audio, and yet maintain an advantage over HD DVD-30 with its much higher usage of advanced audio/video codecs?Again, if multiple lossless tracks are appropriate for a given title than PCM may well not be the best choice. But it's still nice to have the option, and given a much higher percentage of Blu-ray titles provide lossless audio than HD-DVD titles, I think such use has clearly been to Blu-ray's benefit.

- Talk

The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.Are you saying that future SoC based player will not have enough performance for full potential of current titles, or there will be HD DVD players based on new profile which does not support HDi?

Personally, I think my post outlining the various definitions of obsolete showed why these BR players are not worth $1,000 when the new ones that meet the full BD-Live spec are coming in less than 6 months....

I hate to bring this up, but do any of the HD-DVD players do anything with the ethernet port other than download patches yet ?? In otherwords, is there any 'HDi-Live" applications on any current or planned disc titles yet ??

b2b
Irrelevant question, IMO...

As you know there will be more discs that support feratures using the network. But at least all HD DVD players sold will support them.

NONE of the current standalone BR players will EVER support any of the additional BD-Live features that may be added to discs latyer on (ahem, and which AREN'T there now either...)

I certainly wouldn't mind having a more peaceful tone to the debates between me and rdjam but honestly it is very hard to be nice to someone that is rude to you.Oh, you mean by daring to talk back ;) Grow some skin, lately?

Okay, but I still think it was an exaggeration for you to say that most Blu-ray supporters were disappointed that the PS3 was not BD-Live compliant on day one. After all from what you now say it was only a few Blu-ray fans who believed that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant.splitting hares on a rabbit - all expectations that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant were dashed on launch - does that meet your criteria better?

Careful throwing around the term obsolete since if Blu-ray discs start having interactivity that can't be done with HD DVD you might have that term thrown back at you.OBSOLETE, OBSOLETE, OBSOLETE, OBSOLETE! :p

BD-J won't be "beating up" HDi anytime soon - and BD-Live, no matter what it can do, won't be anjoyed by the majority of Bluray owners, so is as good as irrelevant.

Also what I dislike is when HD DVD supporters use the existence of the BD-Live profile as an excuse to attack Blu-ray as a format. Of COURSE you dislike it. The truth hurts. The lowest common denominator of Bluray has now been set at BD-J, so all talk about whether BD-Live can match or beat HDi is "marginal".

Irrelevant question, IMO...

As you know there will be more discs that support feratures using the network. But at least all HD DVD players sold will support them.

NONE of the current standalone BR players will EVER support any of the additional BD-Live features that may be added to discs latyer on (ahem, and which AREN'T there now either...)

Really.. ?? And how do you know that before the fact... Has any studio mentioned a "HDi-Live" application yet ? Will the A1s require another round of "FW" updates to get it to work ?

Can you tell us in detail what "HDi-Live" will do, rather than what BD-Live won't ?? Can you tell us the HDi application will be smart enough to know if the HD-DVD player is even connected to a network ? Some of the U-Control applications just caused the players to hang if they didn't have the 2.0 FW.

b2b

I'm in no position to guarantee that. However, I'm not aware of any title which doesn't work on all players. I think it's unlikely we'll see a future title which doesn't work on all players. There may well be individual features which don't work (by design or due to a bug), but I fully expect the movie itself will always work.
The firmware updates may in fact be analogous, but until we know what's in Sony's update we can only speculate.

Well, you are taking an interesting stance as fortune-teller for people writing code.

Especially when, as amillians pointed out, Sony has already stated:

"To enjoy the BD-J function in some discs, you may need to upgrade your player with the latest firmware. This update is anticipated to be released in 2007."

And we don't know what that means. Do I smell another bet coming on? ;)

BTW: You never have addressed this question of mine:

Why do you say this regarding Sony's fix:

A firmware upgrade fix doesn't imply non-compliance. Non-compliance means a player failed a test suite. A fix means a bug was found. Test suites aren't perfect, so there will likely always be bugs found even when a player passes the test suite (bugs typically result in new tests being added so that future players will have a more robust test suite). Further, a fix could mean improving performance such that some content runs when it might not have previously. Test suites generally don't factor in performance, so it's certainly possible content will be written which fails on a fully-compliant player.

- Talk

Yet you say this regarding HD DVD:

A very slight mod, meaning one which makes certain movies work when they didn't before? Doesn't sound so slight to me. Either the initial HD-DVD players (both standalone and PC-based) a) weren't compliant with the HDi spec, b) were compliant with the spec but the compliance tests are incredibly weak, or c) there is some form of unannounced profiling going on where certain HDi features above-and-beyond the spec requirements are being used.

Why that vastly different catagorization, when you admittedly don't even know what Sony's fix entails?

Okay, but I still think it was an exaggeration for you to say that most Blu-ray supporters were disappointed that the PS3 was not BD-Live compliant on day one. After all from what you now say it was only a few Blu-ray fans who believed that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant. Also how many of them actually expected it to be so on day one?




I'll jump in here and agree with Richard, but only because 99.9% of the PS3-buying public wouldn't know what BD-Live was if it came up and bit 'em where the Good Lord split 'em.

And THAT my friends.... is a problem.

Where is "HDi-Live" ? Toshiba players support it (I assume) and so does the Xb360 (again assume).

There has been this steady stream of condemnation about the status of BD-Live. So where is the equivalent in HD-DVD ?? From what I have seen it is still MIA too...

b2b

Lack of titles utilizing it != deliberate exclustion from the player

(I'll assume the hyperbolic usage of "HDi-Live", as no such seperate profile exists)

Irrelevant question, IMO...

As you know there will be more discs that support feratures using the network. But at least all HD DVD players sold will support them.

NONE of the current standalone BR players will EVER support any of the additional BD-Live features that may be added to discs latyer on (ahem, and which AREN'T there now either...)

Well hold on a minute.

I've probably talked more about the profile confusion than just about anyone here, and I agree it's difficult to get a straight read on what the players today are capable of.

But where do you have evidence that not a single player released today will ever have a firmware upgrade to enable a single BD-Live feature?

Lack of titles utilizing it != deliberate exclustion from the player

(I'll assume the hyperbolic usage of "HDi-Live", as no such seperate profile exists)

Well now that the "science fiction' campaign about BD50 is over, it just seems like "here we are" all over again with another harping campaign on BD-Live when HD-DVD hasn't even begun to explain, much less produce any online interactive titles.

How about a harping campaign to do that ?? Start a petition demanding HDi-Live titles for HD-DVD (I call it that because it's quicker to type and you seem to understand what I'm talking about anyhow... ;))

b2b

Bigger numbers sound good to me cos they imply possibly better P&A Q.
They dont sound "bigger" =) I am not daft.
"Imply possibly" isn't a big statement of confidence.

Ben, with all due respect, I cannot accept the opinion of a non format-agnostic person. I have the greatest respect for VC1 as a codec, but there are other AV experts who just as confidently reckon that higher bitrate can be used profitably.
I don't expect you to accept my opinion without verification. I'm confident that by consulting objective reviews, and doing your own head-to-head evaluation of HD DVD v. BD titles, you'd come to the conclusion that there is no quality advantage to BD, even when the format is used to its full advantage.

Either way, if it costs me the same, has more content and potentially better PQ, why not support BD, is the way I see it.
Content is political, and there's no evidience for PQ. As for costs? HD DVD is cheaper to implement (in players, authoring, and replication). It's hard to tease that out right now, but lower costs for content creation inevitably mean lower costs for consumers and a richer array of products and titles in the long term.

Well now that the "science fiction' campaign about BD50 is over, it just seems like "here we are" all over again with another harping campaign on BD-Live when HD-DVD hasn't even begun to explain, much less produce any online interactive titles.

How about a harping campaign to do that ?? Start a petition demanding HDi-Live titles for HD-DVD (I call it that because it's quicker to type and you seem to understand what I'm talking about anyhow... ;))

b2b

If there's an actual plan to build discs that won't work on current players that contain supporting hardware* then you may count in it.

But please make no mistake: the crux of my discontent is the actual ratified to do this without disclosure to the buying public. If such a plan exists for the HD DVD camp, I will be an unhappy camper. Again.

*For both camps: players purchased with an obvious hardware limitation (i.e. no network jack) would not, IMO, be deliberately misleading the consumer.

The overall bandwidth limits still apply, so you'd have an absolute max of 48Mb/sec AVC. If, as reported, the PS3 can handle 40Mb/sec with 3 CPU units, an additional 20% shouldn't break things (especially given the real possibility they will find a 20%+ improvement in decoding efficiency as algorithms improve).

I'm sorry, is this speculation, or do you actually know something about the internals of the H.264 decoding pipline in the PS3 that you're hinting about?

It sounds like you're assuming a roughly linear ratio between bitrate and decode complexity, which simply isn't true for codecs, and less so for H.264 than most. Yes, bitrate is a factor, but there's a lot of fixed cost stuff in there that has to happen irrespective of bitrate.

I said "if there is space to use PCM". If it's a BD25 with MPEG-2, or the movie is long enough that even with advanced codecs you don't have enough space, then clearly PCM isn't the right solution. But if you've got the space it makes lossless available to everyone.

I think you've nicely highlighted the problem in not having mandatory advanced audio decoders in BD - PCM is really the only reliably available high quality codec, but it takes so many bits that it's just not tenable in many cases.

If there's an actual plan to build discs that won't work on current players that contain supporting hardware* then you may count in it.

But please make no mistake: the crux of my discontent is the actual ratified to do this without disclosure to the buying public. If such a plan exists for the HD DVD camp, I will be an unhappy camper. Again.

And there is no such plan. There's one HD DVD spec.

Basically, HD DVD made "HD DVD Live" the mandatory spec, without a limited functionality spec and products launching first like with BD.

[from Insider's thread]

Compare the box office and general appeal of "Talledega" vs "Serenity" and it's no contest.
Why pack a title with extremely limited appeal?

Serenity wasn't packed. I used it as an example of an early title that demonstrated what the new format was capable of. None of the standalone decks packed a disc, altho Toshiba will send you 3 from a list of 15-18 or so.

Now, both game consoles DID pack discs, and the HD DVD with the 360 add-on was King King, which was a spectacular xfer and a big box-office draw.

Two opportunities to generate some buzz seem to me to be: the initial discs avaialable at format launch, and when you might want to make a strong marketing push by including a free disc with an expected large-sellar player... seems to me that's the time to break out the eye-candy...

And there is no such plan. There's one HD DVD spec.

Basically, HD DVD made "HD DVD Live" the mandatory spec, without a limited functionality spec and products launching first like with BD.

That has been my understanding all along, hence as an answer to B2B that's why I've not raised it as an issue.

Latest sales figure on the console BD player PS3

http://nexgenwars.com/images/x360_forum2.jpg (http://nexgenwars.com/)
http://nexgenwars.com/images/wii_forum2.jpg (http://nexgenwars.com/)
http://nexgenwars.com/images/ps3_forum2.jpg (http://nexgenwars.com/)

Sony expects to ship altogether 2mil consoles in 5 more days time. Yet sales is 1/4 of the total of shipment estimate.

those numbers don't look right at all

http://www.vgcharts.org/images/x360wiips3.gif (http://www.vgcharts.org)

NONE of the current standalone BR players will EVER support any of the additional BD-Live features that may be added to discs latyer on (ahem, and which AREN'T there now either...)Just as you do on your petition website, you're trying to use devious language to make an invalid point. Why do you limit your claim to standalone players? The PS3 has clearly outsold all other Blu-ray (and HD-DVD) players by a tremendous margin, and many of those will be used for BD playback. Unless we accept your [completely unsupported] claim that the PS3 cannot be BD-Live compliant (because if it could clearly Sony would have announced it as such), you're leaving out the vast majority of BD players in your claim. Besides which, your claim even as written can't be supported, since you have no proof that the Pioneer won't be upgradeable to support BD-Live.
all expectations that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant were dashed on launchHow exactly were those hopes dashed? Because Sony didn't immediately claim BD-Live support? Are there no other possible reasons why Sony would wait to announce it? Are there other players which have announced BD-Live support which Sony is afraid of losing sales to? Are there BD-Live software titles currently available which won't sell if people don't think they have a player capable of supporting them? Is it not possible that Sony wants to save some announcements for spring when they'll be making announcements to maintain momentum? Is it not possible that the BD-Live spec may have compliance tests not yet in place for which Sony intends to wait before announcing support?

I've just given you four very solid reasons why Sony might choose not to announce BD-Live support at the current time even if the PS3 is fully capable. You have yet to give me one reason why the PS3 is not technically capable of it. Thanks for raising the quality of discussion here. :confused:

Why that vastly different catagorization, when you admittedly don't even know what Sony's fix entails?It's a matter of context. The original quote I was replying to implied that Blu-ray updates added BD-J support where none existed before, while the HD-DVD updates were simply minor fixes. I was pointing out that the HD-DVD updates have clearly added major pieces of the HDi implementation where it didn't exist before (since U-control titles simply won't play), while the BD players all generally support BD-J content whether updated or not , though the updates improve the experience.

I'm sorry, is this speculation, or do you actually know something about the internals of the H.264 decoding pipline in the PS3 that you're hinting about?I have not undertaken in-depth study of the decoding pipeline of the Cell archtiecture, so I'm speaking in general terms. However, given that Cell is a radically different architecture than those which have preceded it, and the demonstrable fact that as developers learn how to make use of the hardware most platforms undergo substantial performance increases over the first few years following widespread availability coupled with statements made by Sony and other Cell engineers, there is certainly reason to be optimistic that whatever performance has been demonstrated today is likely to be nowhere near what the platform is ultimately capable of.
I think you've nicely highlighted the problem in not having mandatory advanced audio decoders in BD - PCM is really the only reliably available high quality codec, but it takes so many bits that it's just not tenable in many cases.I've also nicely highlighted the benefit of how the BDA has specified TrueHD and DTS-HD MA support. Those releases which have enough space can provide PCM tracks and everyone gets lossless. Those releases without enough space can provide TrueHD or DTS-HD MA tracks and everyone gets at a minimum DD or DTS 5.1, and those with properly equipped players get the full lossless experience. Contrast this with HD-DVD where PCM doesn't appear to be an option due to space constraints, and a studio providing only a TrueHD track can't be assured consumers will experience that in 5.1 (though existing players will provide 5.1 support).

- Talk

Oh, you mean by daring to talk back Grow some skin, lately?There is no need for such a juvenille response. Honestly rdjam I don't mind a debate but when you "talk back" it is usually in the form of claims that you so often post but so rarely provide evidence for, personal opinions stated as though they were facts, and attacks against anyone that doesn't agree with what you believe.


splitting hares on a rabbit - all expectations that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant were dashed on launch - does that meet your criteria better?Do you have any evidence for that belief or is this a personal opinion?


BD-J won't be "beating up" HDi anytime soon.For someone that says this with such confidence it is telling that you had to add the term "anytime soon" to that statement. After all if you believed that HDi could do everything that BD-J could you wouldn't have bothered to put a time limit on that statement.


and BD-Live, no matter what it can do, won't be anjoyed by the majority of Bluray owners, so is as good as irrelevant.Another personal opinion stated as though it was a fact.


Of COURSE you dislike it. The truth hurts. The lowest common denominator of Bluray has now been set at BD-J, so all talk about whether BD-Live can match or beat HDi is "marginal".Actually I was comparing the requirements of BD-Live to HD DVD in terms of players. You can't compare HDi, which is an interactive layer, to a player spec such as BD-Live. Also rdjam the most likely reason that you don't want to compare BD-Live to HD DVD is because BD-Live does have higher requirements than HD DVD and will be capable of more because of that.

... Besides which, your claim even as written can't be supported, since you have no proof that the Pioneer won't be upgradeable to support BD-Live.
...

Well, I'll not state future absolutes.. because I know the sticky trouble that can cause... ;)

But, it would be odd to state this (on pg. 7 under "BD-J Application") in the user manual if there was ever any intention of perhaps providing BD-Live support in the future:

(This player does not support
downloadable BD-J content, direct connection to the Internet or the
retrieval of content through the Internet.)

It's a matter of context. The original quote I was replying to implied that Blu-ray updates added BD-J support where none existed before, while the HD-DVD updates were simply minor fixes. I was pointing out that the HD-DVD updates have clearly added major pieces of the HDi implementation where it didn't exist before (since U-control titles simply won't play), while the BD players all generally support BD-J content whether updated or not , though the updates improve the experience. (emphasis mine)

I'm not so sure that's clearly the case, as you state.

If a U-control title uses a HDi feature or menuing feature that has a bug so that it does not initialize properly to play the title, that's pretty different that the feature being entirely absent. Do you havge any evidence whatsoever that you aren't speculating?

However there's a good portion of those quotes of yours that are incongruous that you continue to ignore.

Regarding BD-J:

Test suites aren't perfect, so there will likely always be bugs found even when a player passes the test suite (bugs typically result in new tests being added so that future players will have a more robust test suite).

Regarding HDi:

...Either the initial HD-DVD players (both standalone and PC-based) a) weren't compliant with the HDi spec, b) were compliant with the spec but the compliance tests are incredibly weak...

Why in the initial case is the test suite a positive when it results in Sony releasing a fix that (as Alex Millians reports) allows some BD-J titles to play, whereas HDi doing the same is a sign of "incredible weakness"?

Why don't we agree that both platforms will require fixes as is the case with so many CE devices these days?

Well now that the "science fiction' campaign about BD50 is over, Its not a science fiction novel but until more releases are DL50 than SL25 easy dual layer replication is still a work of fiction.

That will be the case until the overwhelming amount of releases are dual layer. When most Blu-ray releases are still 25 GB and most HD DVD releases are 30GB, Blu-ray is still at a capacity disadvantage no matter how you spin it. ;)

Its not a science fiction novel but until more releases are DL50 than SL25 easy dual layer replication is still a work of fiction.

That will be the case until the overwhelming amount of releases are dual layer. When most Blu-ray releases are still 25 GB and most HD DVD releases are 30GB, Blu-ray is still at a capacity disadvantage no matter how you spin it. ;)

Sorry, I forgot... once a talking point, always a talking point... :rolleyes:

Do your worst.... :) http://www.filmhobbit.com/forum/images/admins/smilies/deadhorse.gif

b2b

"Imply possibly" isn't a big statement of confidence.


I don't expect you to accept my opinion without verification. I'm confident that by consulting objective reviews, and doing your own head-to-head evaluation of HD DVD v. BD titles, you'd come to the conclusion that there is no quality advantage to BD, even when the format is used to its full advantage.


Content is political, and there's no evidience for PQ. As for costs? HD DVD is cheaper to implement (in players, authoring, and replication). It's hard to tease that out right now, but lower costs for content creation inevitably mean lower costs for consumers and a richer array of products and titles in the long term.
My statement was badly constructed. It should have been:

"Better specs mean/imply that it is possible to have better PQ and AQ." That was how it was in my head =)

The thing with specs is that until someone uses them to the full, it remains a possibility but it is a very real one, nonetheless.

PQ on HD-DVD titles is wonderful but since a better spec is available, I am going to do the greedy thing and opt for more content and better specs. The content differential is already real and I have great faith that the content people at the studios will use this bitrate to good effect. if not now, then later. My PS3 can wait.

And there is no such plan. There's one HD DVD spec.

And there is one Blu-ray spec.

But no such plan? :rolleyes: Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?

And there is one Blu-ray spec.

But no such plan? :rolleyes: Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?

Cue Foley... {Sound of Other Shoe dropping}... ;)

b2b

And there is one Blu-ray spec.

But no such plan? :rolleyes: Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?


Why yes... please do comment.

Its not a science fiction novel but until more releases are DL50 than SL25 easy dual layer replication is still a work of fiction.Based on that logic getting more studio/CE support behind HD DVD is a work of fiction as well. Also you have to admit there was a lot of negativity about dual layer Blu-ray discs being posted by certain HD DVD supporters.


When most Blu-ray releases are still 25 GB and most HD DVD releases are 30GB, Blu-ray is still at a capacity disadvantage no matter how you spin it.If one cared about capacity wouldn't the long term difference of 20 GB be considered a more significant factor than the short term difference of 5 GB?


Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players? I too would like for one of the HD DVD insiders to post about this since until today I had never even heard of performance levels for HD DVD.

I too would like for one of the HD DVD insiders to post about this since until today I had never even heard of performance levels for HD DVD.

Ditto. What are the new performance levels and what is their impact on compatibility? Maybe a question for the insider thread. I'm also curious about how a final AACS agreement will affect compatibility for each format when/if they ever get such a thing.

- Tom

Steve, you clearly are very detail-oriented (not saying this as a bad thing) and won't feel this issue is closed until I've answered precisely this question: Why don't we agree that both platforms will require fixes as is the case with so many CE devices these days?I fully agree with that statement. I just am unwilling to allow the notion to exist that HD-DVD players have shipped from the start with full HDi support while Blu-ray players shipped with no BD-J support. There is ample evidence that significant parts of the HDi spec were not present in the HD-A1 1.0 firmware, and there is no evidence that any BD player has shipped without BD-J support (other than ambiguously worded Samsung/Sony statements regarding what would be in future updates).

That's all.

Merry Christmas if this be a holiday you observe!

from the new thread

CES - Toshiba plans aggressive HD DVD push at CES

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/122506-ces-toshiba-plans-aggressive-hd.html

When asked if Toshiba would be announcing cheaper players Fujii remained tight-lipped on the company's plans but said, "At first I though the price threshold is $499. Maybe coming next is $399 and after that is $299." He didn't give a timeframe for this possible drop in prices. It will be interesting if any lower priced HD DVD players will be announced at CES.

While both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc have appeared in stores during 2006 sales of both formats remain relatively low. Prices of compatible machines are high and the formats continue their battle. That means consumers buying either format risk being left with a machine on the losing side that could end up being nothing but an expensive door-stop in a few years. Comments like this irritate me sometimes.

I think that now the current 2nd gen $499 HD DVD players with their upconversion capabilities won't ever be doorstops, they always can act as upconverting SD DVD players and the PS3 will always be a nice game machine, even if their respective formats HD fail.

Right now, for their prices they are starting to become solid values, even if the success of their HD formats are in doubt. A consumer who bought either one would probably be very satisfied with their purchase.

We should encourage people to go out and enjoy either flavor of HD now and enjoy and get their value now and not worry about wether in a few years they may not be able to buy HD discs in their format of choice.

Steve, you clearly are very detail-oriented (not saying this as a bad thing)...

Now if only my poor wife would agree with your parenthetical sentiment... :D

...and won't feel this issue is closed until I've answered precisely this question: I fully agree with that statement. I just am unwilling to allow the notion to exist that HD-DVD players have shipped from the start with full HDi support while Blu-ray players shipped with no BD-J support. There is ample evidence that significant parts of the HDi spec were not present in the HD-A1 1.0 firmware, and there is no evidence that any BD player has shipped without BD-J support (other than ambiguously worded Samsung/Sony statements regarding what would be in future updates).

Fair enough. I'l lmeet you half way: I have no absolute proof any BD players shipped without BD-J (non-Live flavor) either... and assume they do until it proved otherwise.

Likewise I've no absulute proof HD players whipped without a full HDi implementation either, despite your conjecture.

:)


That's all.

Merry Christmas if this be a holiday you observe!

Thanks for the sentiments... you too please be safe and enjoy whatever time you are taking with family, etc...

Amir, it was actually 2 of your posts in the Insiders' thread that conveyed to me and others that PQ was not the reason for MPEG2 being chosen by Paramount (see here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9114399&&#post9114399) and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9156207&&#post9156207) for 2 such posts of yours).


Did I misunderstand your posts? Here is my post in reply to which you said that an assumption of mine is wrong:

"Based on the insider thread info, Paramount chose mpeg2 for the BD title for reasons besides PQ. I would have thought that since Paramount was willing to spend the money on two separate encodes, BDA could have requested for a max bitrate VC1 encode to demo the advantage of higher bitrate."

To re-iterate, you said in the Insiders thread (or I understood you to have said) that PQ was not the reason (see above 2 links).

Now, when I wrote as much in this thread, you say no insider explained dealings with Paramount. Besides PQ, the other "assumption" of mine in the quoted post is that of financial incentives.

That is actually based on insider info from Penton-man. Check here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9162739&&#post9162739) for a post by Penton on the subject of absence of financial incentives for Paramount to use MPEG2. Penton also mentioned that Paramount was motivated by PQ. One of you is incorrect..

Other insiders reading this (including Penton and Paidgeek): Did Paramount choose MPEg2 for PQ or not for PQ? An honest query :)

I found your post very interesting in that I think it's educational in a number of ways.

We have a question here about Paramount and why they chose to release an HD-DVD VC1 encoded title with Mpeg2 when shipping the BD-50 version. I would think this would seem odd to everyone. After you've already spent the time and effort to do the VC1 encode, why go back and do it all over again with a different codec for the BD release?

So the question gets posed, and the responses come.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know.

The response from Amir.......
I can't disclose the real reason but I can assure you that this is not the reason.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.

The response from Amir.......
Given public facts, I agree it seems odd. But given the non-public facts, it is not as much.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know. It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.

The response from Penton-Man........
Paramount had to pay to have the MPEG2 stream encoded when they could have chosen to recycle the VC1 stream and reduce costs.
They were not incentivized in any way to use MPEG2; other than to achieve what they believed to be the best picture quality possible with this title.

So we seem to have conflicting statements from two sources. In a situation like this I believe it's always best to sit back and review what we know.

1. Paramount must have had some reason for going out of their way to do this.
2. If Paramounts motive was to produce a better looking movie for Blu-Ray (as Penton-Man implies), the effort was not successful (comments in the review describe the BD version looking a little coarser, but ultimately calling it a draw between formats).
3. Amir is saying that the decision was not made based on Paramounts belief that MPEG2 would be more faithful to the source. If Amir is correct, then there are no surprises for Paramount in the reviews of the finished product.
4. We know Amir is an insider because he is open about who he is and what he does. He's a supporter of VC1 and HD-DVD technologies because he is involved with their development, and benefits from their success. The statements he makes are publicly attributable to Amir Majidimehr Corporate Vice President, Consumer Media Technology Group, Microsoft.
5. We know Penton-Man is an insider because the Mods vouch for him as one. Statements he makes are publicly attributable to Penton-Man.

It's up to each of us to figure out what the significance is of the information we have.

after sluggin thru this thread two or 3 things stood out,

2 were comments by dr1394

1 being

The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.

Ron

2, was a hint that toshibas method of 1080p24 couold be ruff.

and finally the introduction of a performance critera that could affect playback.

Could someone explain this in more detail, as there is somthing going on in the HD-DVD camp that it sounds like we should know about. unless its spin of course

after sluggin thru this thread two or 3 things stood out,

2 were comments by dr1394

1 being

The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.

Ron

2, was a hint that toshibas method of 1080p24 couold be ruff.

and finally the introduction of a performance critera that could affect playback.

Could someone explain this in more detail, as there is somthing going on in the HD-DVD camp that it sounds like we should know about. unless its spin of course

Well, it's Christmas and I'm sure dr1394's got better things to do. I'd be curious to see him answer these as well. I have no idea on #1 as I've never seen this comment before. On #2, I can guess, but I shouldn't presume someone's answer.

Think about what factor is requiring high performance CPU. Without using that (but it introduces limited performance, or maybe even missing functionality), players could be cheaper.