BD has chosen to keep all their players expensive.
The Perfect Vision: Sony PS3 - Worlds Best Blu-ray Player

It soon may be the most expensive, as it canniballizes the component versions

A very wise person once posted this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9733617&&#post9733617):


...
BTW: I've found a strange paradox:

People that like and own the PS3 claim they are harder to find than an honest politician, while people who don't own and don't like the PS3 can't seem to go to the bathroom without tripping over one.

And since I know none of these people would lie about the availability of the PS3, one can only conclude that the more you like a PS3, the less likely you are to find one for sale in your neighborhood. :)

A very wise person once posted this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9733617&&#post9733617):
Well... I REALLY like the PS3 and I finally found ONE at an EB Games store in the Oceanside, CA area, a couple of weeks ago. Never saw one before, no matter how many Best Buys/EB Games/Gamestops/Walmarts or whatever I tried. I guess it is harder to find in CA than in the rest of the country.

No matter, I did find one, so I'm in Happy Land.

I think PS3 availability in certain markets is still not good. I've not seen one around here (but I'm not actively looking).

I think the problem is people miss interpreting constant replenishment with
readily available.

Like thomopolis started, I think the PS3 has regular decent shipments that don't stay on the shelf long. I bought my PS3 on Dec 23 (I know it was some time ago) but what happened was that I went to several stores and went into BB and asked if they had any (OK, I saw them in the cage before asking), the guy answered that they just got 70 that morning and I was luck they had 3 left. The other stores had said no but try again in a week or two because they tend to get them often. The reason I went shopping that day was that while talking with my sister she told me her husband was thinking of going out to search for a Wii. Every store we went to he asked for Wii and I for the PS3 the answer was more or less the same (well except for the BB) No PS3 no Wii, try next week for the PS3 since they tend to get shipments every week but don’t even bother for the Wii until mid or end of Jan. This constant replenishment tends to make the PS3 easier to buy (you need to luck out and be tenacious) but that does not mean they are readily available. There is also the other thing, even in a hard to find market if the store tends to get a reliable shipment, if the person is anal and his shopping habits match the shipment dates then it could look readily available ( i.e. you go shopping every Sat at 10:00 and the new shipments for the week that last one day get added to the shelves at 8:00)

The "myth" of high cost BD replication appears to be dead.
Looking at the pricing and calculated data we can conclude that replicating content on the Blu-ray format is not significantly more costly than HD DVD. In fact, replicating on Blu-ray SL (25GB) can actually be less expensive than replicating on HD DVD DL (30GB)
http://wesleytech.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/replicationcosts3.PNG

http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-analyzed-again/

b2b

A very wise person once posted this:

lol, isn't that just human nature? if you hate something even once is way too much but if you want something every time you don't find it you are annoyed

Hi,

I run a 7.1 setup using THX ULTRA II Cinema & Music. When dvd-a and sacd were introduced I jumped in with both feet (300 discs).

If it were not my exposure to HIRES music, I might be harder to convince but when they re-released "Top Gun" in DTS-ES Discrete for $11.00cdn I couldn't pass it up and since I video scale all my dvds to 1080i, I wouldn't think of getting either of the new formats until at least 6.1 Lossl;ess audio was the minimum available on the discs that count.

Peter M.

Hi,

I run a 7.1 setup using THX ULTRA II Cinema & Music. When dvd-a and sacd were introduced I jumped in with both feet (300 discs).

If it were not my exposure to HIRES music, I might be harder to convince but when they re-released "Top Gun" in DTS-ES Discrete for $11.00cdn I couldn't pass it up and since I video scale all my dvds to 1080i, I wouldn't think of getting either of the new formats until at least 6.1 Lossl;ess audio was the minimum available on the discs that count.

Peter M.

So 1080p movies with PCM 5.1-7.1/ lossless audio is crumbs in your book?

Timothy Ramzyk :The equation is Joe>>Frank>John and there is no reason to believe that it will not be true in the short or even long term. Even if all standalone players changed to dual magically, the vast majority of people would be single formats and nothing has changed.

Then Joe and Frank need to buy stand-alone, and stop expecting the people who buy movies to fall into line around their gaming choices. Joe can't even up-convert with his PS3 right? If there is only one format either Frank or Joe are gonna be pretty unhappy anyway.

Should I have ever cared about UMD owners, just because the redundant format was trapped in a game counsel? If Sony wants to use a Trojan-horse approach to push their related product, I guess that's kind of how things go. Gamers ought to be used to this by now, it's highly competitive field.

Studio alliances are crock as well; if some studios can afford to be neutral, they all can, especially Fox and Disney for crying out loud.

I love the idea that these mega-media conglomerates forming alliances to control content and medium, and somehow that's our problem.

snip

The issue is when someone says KK is proof that a 3h movie can be put on a 30GB disk, it does not hold. Let’s assume KK is one of those movies where lossless was not needed and so customers won’t miss the lossless, does it mean that it will be true for every other movie? What if someone wanted to put a 3h Bollywood movie that have lots of signing and dancing?

All KK shows is that as long as people are willing to live with compromises a 3h movie can fit on 30GB, but then again wasn’t that same 3h movie on one DVD? Just depends how many compromises you are willing to make.

Your position would be very valid if BD was showing that it could deliver superior PQ results to HD-DVD. That, however, is not the case.

Hi,

I run a 7.1 setup using THX ULTRA II Cinema & Music. When dvd-a and sacd were introduced I jumped in with both feet (300 discs).

If it were not my exposure to HIRES music, I might be harder to convince but when they re-released "Top Gun" in DTS-ES Discrete for $11.00cdn I couldn't pass it up and since I video scale all my dvds to 1080i, I wouldn't think of getting either of the new formats until at least 6.1 Lossl;ess audio was the minimum available on the discs that count.

Peter M.

Top Gun SE is only 754 kps. There are other DTS titles that are 1509 kps.

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_6a.asp

It's a L-O-N-G way from lossless yet you believe it sounds great.

Will you still believe it sounds great KNOWING that now?

That's what this lossy vs lossless debate is all about.

There are so many bigger factors in what makes your movie sound RIGHT than lossy vs lossless...For example, does your wife make you have hardwood floors in your viewing room? Tower speakers or are they in the ceilings and walls? It goes on and on.

The "myth" of high cost BD replication appears to be dead.
b2b That is in direct contradiction to those actually trying to replicate discs, but I guess you can choose to believe.

The next question will be “does it matter?” for some of us that want the look and sound of perfect (or at least as close as possible given today’s tech) the answer is yes.




Do you buy the expensive monster cables Anthony?


Because that's what Blu-ray is, the expensive monster cables - and I don't buy the expensive monster cables.

Do you buy the expensive monster cables Anthony?

Because that's what Blu-ray is, the expensive monster cables - and I don't buy the expensive monster cables. I don't buy Bose either, but I do admire their marketing.

Then Joe and Frank need to buy stand-alone, and stop expecting the people who buy movies to fall into line around their gaming choices. Joe can't even up-convert with his PS3 right? If there is only one format either Frank or Joe are gonna be pretty unhappy anyway.

Should I have ever cared about UMD owners, just because the redundant format was trapped in a game counsel? If Sony wants to use a Trojan-horse approach to push their related product, I guess that's kind of how things go. Gamers ought to be used to this by now, it's highly competitive field.

Studio alliances are crock as well; if some studios can afford to be neutral, they all can, especially Fox and Disney for crying out loud.

I love the idea that these mega-media conglomerates forming alliances to control content and medium, and somehow that's our problem.


Tom: do you have any reading comprehension? You said some pages back that with dual players more studios will go HD DVD because it is cheaper to replicate. The point was that even if every standalone was dual the vast majority of players won't be, if Warner went HD DVD only because of cost and all other players are dual they are missing all the PS3 sales. If they6 go BD they are losing all the add-on sales. The stand alone numbers (even if all dual) will always be much less then the single format others. If Warner was not willing to lose the PS3 sales today and the add-on today why would they in one year be willing to do it when it is much worst?

Your position would be very valid if BD was showing that it could deliver superior PQ results to HD-DVD. That, however, is not the case.

it shows it can handle the same PQ and supperior audio.

Do you buy the expensive monster cables Anthony?


Because that's what Blu-ray is, the expensive monster cables - and I don't buy the expensive monster cables.

no, I buy quality not snake-oil and marketing BS. That is why I am not buying HD DVD

it shows it can handle the same PQ and supperior audio.

This is merely your personal opinion, and should be stated as such.

no, I buy quality not snake-oil and marketing BS. That is why I am not buying HD DVD

Any claim of audio superiority not substantiated by any empirical evidence, is functionally indistinguishable from snake oil, no matter how closely it might appear to coincide with logic, and/or intuition.

Hi,

You missed the word minimum, and hopefully I'll by upgrading my 2001 Tosh65H80 early next year to something "native" 1080P. I will then continue to wait.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic re the audio but when the studios didn't release everything in at least 6.1 Lossless, I was very disapointed.

Peter M.

no, I buy quality not snake-oil and marketing BS. That is why I am not buying HD DVD

I don't know why you would say HD DVD players are lacking in quality, all mine do a wonderful job at putting out a quality picture and sound.

The only barker of snake oil and marketing BS seems to be coming from the BD Assoc., when was the last time you saw an ad or much of anything else about HD DVD anywhere? They don't have to because of price and word of mouth.

A lot of your posts go into a tangent that the regular person on the street isn't going to care about. Most of these people are going to hook up a player, plug in their composite cables and be done with it. I've reconfigured to many set ups correctly for friends and family to many times to think otherwise. :)

I've reconfigured to many set ups correctly for friends and family to many times to think otherwise.

I have too. I used to suggest the purchase of a macro-capable universal remote, which I would then program to simplify input selection, etc., but many people somehow managed to screw things up anyway. HTIBs are popular for reasons beyond price.

Any claim of audio superiority not substantiated by any empirical evidence, is functionally indistinguishable from snake oil, no matter how closely it might appear to coincide with logic, and/or intuition.Interesting position, and do you think that between 1.5 Mbps DD+, 1.5 Mbps DTS, 640 Kbps DD, and 448 Kbps DD there is any improvement with audio? I ask this since I don't know of any double blind tests that have really tested this.

The main technical arguments for BD have centered around the superior specifications of the format. Namely larger disc space (BD-50) and greater bandwidth. I will focus mostly on the question of disc size and PQ.

There are 30 BD-50 titles (out of the 144 BD reviews) that have been reviewed on highdefdigest.com. That's 21% of all available BD titles.

10 are dual release titles - 6 of these are VC1 and the other 4 are MPEG2. All 10 titles have idenitcal PQ scores on HD-DVD and BD. 8 of the titles have identical AQ scores in both formats. Superman Returns and Babel scored higher in AQ for the HD-DVD releases than the BD releases.

20 of the 30 BD-50 titles are encoded in MPEG2. The average PQ score of these titles is 4.

8 of the 30 titles are encoded in VC1. 6 are dual release and 2 are BD exclusive. The average PQ score is 4.25 for both the dual release and BD exclusive titles. The sample size for the BD exclusive titles is still very small.

2 of the 30 titles are encoded in AVC. PQ scores are 4 and 3.5 (average of 3.75), but the sample size is still very small.

We still have few BD-50 titles to make judgements on, so it's something that I continue to watch. I suspect, however, that what we are seeing is that the weakest link in many of the available titles is not the storage space/bandwidth but source material and other factors, unless Mpeg2 is being used. Mpeg2 on longer material benefits from the greater bandwidth and storage of BD.

As for BD-50 providing superior playback to HD-DVD, I haven't seen evidence of it yet.

Interesting position, and do you think that between 1.5 Mbps DD+, 1.5 Mbps DTS, 640 Kbps DD, and 448 Kbps DD there is any improvement with audio? I ask this since I don't know of any double blind tests that have really tested this.

There have been tests that show most people cannot tell the difference between even 128kps mp3 and the same track on cd.

But certainly, the audio enthusiasts on this forum wouldn't fall for that would they? :p

I have no problem with competition. But at this point I think most of the benefits of competition between the formats have been achieved (more features, better PQ, etc.) and the consumer is only being harmed by the ongoing war given that it is greatly slowing overall adoption of high-def optical media. There is more than enough competition within the BDA to ensure ongoing price, feature, and quality improvement. No one (except Microsoft) will benefit if both formats die due to lack of consumer adoption...

Do you disagree?

He may not, but I do on 2 points:

1) All during the early portion of the launch, your position (and apparently the public face of most BDA companies) was that, while HD DVD was eating your lunch, nobody in BDA-land was worried, because it was terribly early in the game, and everybody knew that success over the long-haul was what mattered. Now as soon as BD has gained some traction HD DVD should pack up shop and go away, because they are impeding progress.

2) Your characterization of MS as a benefactor should both format's fail is not grounded in anything that I can see. On the contrary, MS would benefit to a greater or lesser extent should either format succeed (they have IP in both). Furthermore, the more established HD (ostensibly with VC-1 seeing significant usage) becomes, the greater demand for other HD services they may offer (downloads via XBox Live, running managed copy services, their IPTV initiatives, etc...)

Studio alliances are crock as well; if some studios can afford to be neutral, they all can, especially Fox and Disney for crying out loud.

I love the idea that these mega-media conglomerates forming alliances to control content and medium, and somehow that's our problem.


Most studios are format-exclusive. It's only two wishy-washy studios out of 6 majors which are "neutral." Sure the others could be but choose not to be.

That's their prerogative. It's their content, they can do anything they want with it.

They've always cut deals for content like this. iTunes only has Disney and Paramount movies. Wal Mart just launched a video download store with all the studios, leveraging their relationships with the studios for packaged media.

That's just the way the world works.

Tom: do you have any reading comprehension? You said some pages back that with dual players more studios will go HD DVD because it is cheaper to replicate. The point was that even if every standalone was dual the vast majority of players won't be, if Warner went HD DVD only because of cost and all other players are dual they are missing all the PS3 sales. If they6 go BD they are losing all the add-on sales. The stand alone numbers (even if all dual) will always be much less then the single format others. If Warner was not willing to lose the PS3 sales today and the add-on today why would they in one year be willing to do it when it is much worst?


I think I have plenty. I'm going to have to question yours however since my name is not Tom, and I'm pretty sure I never said "with dual players more studios will go HD DVD because it is cheaper to replicate." :p

I may have said "HD-DVD will be more attractive to studios and independents for smaller-volume releases".

You write a lot and often among these pages, and the overall distillation I get is that your a BD ONLY guy who has convinced himself HD-DVD is inferior and wants it dead before the consumer can see "The Emperor Has No Clothes," or at least no more clothes. It's got nothing to do with whats right for the consumer and everything to do with what Anthony has decided is right for Anthony. Like it or not, some day you may have to choose to reach across the aisle for content, or just go without.

Most studios are format-exclusive. It's only two wishy-washy studios out of 6 majors which are "neutral." Sure the others could be but choose not to be.

Warner is probably thee best company of any when it comes to reliable fairly priced content and consumer relations. If they are wishy-washy, I guess I wish others were.

I can't tell you how much I wish they had won the bid on the MGM library instead of Sony/Fox, because they know what they're doing.

Yeah, because Microsoft really gave us a choice of a Blu-ray drive with the Xbox 360 didn't they? Come on nataraj if Microsoft had managed to get HDi in Blu-ray they probably would have sat this format war out.

Again you prove my point. When it comes to my posts you can't see them without putting on anti-MS glasses. You don't even read the context ... you just pounce on my posts.

BTW, if what you are saying is correct, then Sun (with their BD-J) is the major cause of format war :p

And Warners may be using a lower video bitrate on their Blu-Ray releases than they otherwise could be doing, in order to use the same encodes on the HD-DVD release.

Lowest Common Denominator.

why is 18 important? to add HD a change was needed and Toshiba and Warner used the need for 70% to stop it. So the 50% that wanted blue could not. That is why the blue discussions started outside the forum and the BFG was formed. that was when Toshiba decided stalling was not an option and voted yes. I am guessing that after the BFG was formed there was less interest in going back to the DVD forum, after all according to its charter (article 2) the DVD forum was created for a life off 10 years. So Toshiba brought in their idea and they did not have the majority they needed. That is when the forum increased the steering committee by two (the comity can have 10-20 members) and they got over 50%


Gotcha. Rule 18 makes sense since I missed that. But still doesn't answer why the BDA companies didn't block HD DVD in it's infancy. Instead they've been abstaining on the votes...

Taking: http://www.dvdforum.com/about-steering.htm, this appears to be the breakdown:

BD

1. Hitachi, Ltd.
5. LG Electronics Inc.
6. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
8. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
10. PIONEER CORPORATION
11. Royal Philips Electronics
12. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
14. SHARP CORPORATION
15. Sony Corporation
16. THOMSON
19. Walt Disney Pictures and Television


HDDVD

4. Intel Corporation
7. Microsoft Corporation
17. Toshiba Corporation

NEUTRAL

2. IBM Corporation
3. Industrial and Technology Research Institute
9. NEC Corporation
13. SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.
18. Victor Company of Japan, Limited
20. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.


Swaying 3 of the 6 neutrals must have been tried and failed...

Or better yet, why don't we have the government dictate what formats the public will get? Or how about only Harvard alumni? Or maybe a random hermit living in Northern Montana?

Heaven forbid the marketplace decide these things! How dare companies want to make money by creating something new. Maybe we can take money out of it entirely and have a committee dictate what movies will be made, what type of players and formats, and who is allowed to watch what and how!

Sorry you felt you had to rant. Better luck with logic next time.

Last time I checked ISO makes a lot of standards which helps both the industry and consumers.

BTW, if what you are saying is correct, then Sun (with their BD-J) is the major cause of format war :p

So if BDA amended their spec to allow either HDi or BD-J, Microsoft would abandon Toshiba and Universal? :eek:

Interesting position, and do you think that between 1.5 Mbps DD+, 1.5 Mbps DTS, 640 Kbps DD, and 448 Kbps DD there is any improvement with audio? I ask this since I don't know of any double blind tests that have really tested this.

It seems entirely counter-intuitive to say no, but until we see some hard data, it would also be foolish to leap to any conclusions. Comparative testing of relatively low bit-rate codecs suggests that ( among those tested, ) higher rates do not consistently translate into audibly superior sound across different program material, and/or applications. It's easy to understand why double blind testing is a low priority, particularly in the hardware/accessories end of the industry, though I suspect ( OK, fervently hope ) that Dolby Labs has compiled a fairly comprehensive body of Psycho-acoustical data.

They absolutely did, as did Blu-ray on HD DVD, and both formats are better as a result. But as I just posted these benefits are mostly "used up" given that both formats specifications are set. If either format succeeds there will be sufficient competition to ensure ongoing player and content improvement, but the two formats battling each other only slows consumer adoption and makes both more likely to fail. Since Blu-ray is stronger by almost every measure (with the exception of price, which is more a reflection of market strategy than underlying costs) an enthusiast primarily interested in having high definition content available to them should be pushing for the stronger format to prevail (survival of the fittest). Would you rather have one format or no formats? That may well be the choice at hand.

So you are saying that the early BD encodes, you know, the ones done after the standards were already in set, that were widely criticized for their poor quality, and about which Sony defended their use of MPEG2 and their wonderful encoder, were figments of our imagination?

18. Victor Company of Japan, LimitedAs Victor is one of the group companies in Matsushita group it's not neutral.

I stand by that Richard. It's not enough though for BD to have a lead in sales for a month or two. BD needs to dominate disc sales over an extended period of time to kill off HD-DVD.Just curious but what would you consider dominating disc sales and an extended period of time?


I remeber a number of BD supporters saying that the key would be to watch sales of The Departed on both formats. Check it out.

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/index.cfmAn interesting idea though personally I would vastly prefer having the total US sales for "The Departed" on both HD formats.


Have you actually asked for one? A lot of stores keep them behind the counter, so they don't get a "chew and screw" ripoff. They've done that with the 360 and other high priced merchandise. All you have to do is ask.

It is common knowledge tha PS3 has been readily available since late December in the USA.Mike, I can understand Tretton trying to hype the PS3 but I don't see why you are so eager to attack it. Personally the last time I visited my local Wal-mart they still didn't have PS3 consoles for sell and that was less than a week ago. Also they keep their game consoles behind locked glass cabinets.

But still doesn't answer why the BDA companies didn't block HD DVD in it's infancy.

conflict of interest and ethics would be my guess

BD

1. Hitachi, Ltd.
5. LG Electronics Inc.
6. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
8. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
10. PIONEER CORPORATION
11. Royal Philips Electronics
12. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
14. SHARP CORPORATION
15. Sony Corporation
16. THOMSON
19. Walt Disney Pictures and Television


HDDVD

4. Intel Corporation
7. Microsoft Corporation
17. Toshiba Corporation

NEUTRAL

2. IBM Corporation
3. Industrial and Technology Research Institute
9. NEC Corporation
13. SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.
18. Victor Company of Japan, Limited
20. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

your list is all wrong

Thomson was the only other manufacturer to put a label on a stand alone player so far (i.e. RCA)
Disney has always voted with the HD DVD crowed in the forum and are trying to make it better
NEC, Sanyo and WB have been with HD DVD from the start WB might be releasing on both, but they are not neutral in the forum, they went dual because the parent company told them to stop playing favourite and their only job is to sell movies not play politics.
Victor is most likely not Neutral. Anyways Talk or Amir could most likely give a better brake down

eecubed:
even though I agree in principle (give more BW to video and stop this BS that it is good enough and you should pay less attention to artifacts). I don't understand your % position

HD DVD has max of 30mbps BD has 48mbps even if you assume the 30 is 27V/3A, you can end up (on a BD) with 27V/21A, the 27V in HD DVD and BD is the same, now if on the BD it is 40V/8A, then even though the BD has a lower% for Video (83% vs 90%) it still has much higher BW for video then the HD DVD example.

Oh, it's very simple. I want to use the highest possible BW that a given format can handle. IMHO, you go to a lower BW because you have to, not because you want to. So for HD DVD, I'd want 27V/3A. For BD, I'd want 40V/8A. If you can fit lossless in the above, then I am all for it. If you have to reduce the BW for Video to accomodate lossless Audio, then I would oppose.

The above values are what I am looking for regardless of the codecs used. I am looking forward to see what 40Mbps AVC or VC1 can do.

A 2 hour movie with an average of 32Mbps for video will take 28.8GB. A 2 hour and 20 minute movie 33.6GB. With a BD50, that leaves plenty of room for lossless audio (unless extras take up that space).
--Darin

I stand corrected then. I should aim higher: 35+Mbps ;) .

http://www.hdgamedb.com/amazon/history.aspx

sales history graphs now go back to 30 and 45 days instead of just 14 and 7 days.

Gives a new perspective on the magnitude of the Blu-ray and HD DVD surges.

I was not accusing you of Fanboyism. I know your history. You've been here over the entire crusade, and I respect everything you say. There is a cadre of others, though.

NPD numbers got delayed from last week (geez, wonder why?). They will apear this week.

Anyone know what to do with a burned finger? I'm cooking pasta, and, well you know...

Well, I just wanted to thank youfor your kind words and apologize - it's hard to see pauses in posts sometimes, but really yours was obvious, and I shouldn't have spiked.

And while I am apologizing, I also need to now admit I was wrong. I had to go to Home Despot today and went by Best Buy across the street just to see. Sure enough, they had a few PS3's left in the back. Since this is the Oakland Best Buy, they will only put out PS3's, 360's, and any other jacketable items with security cables (I just love my home town). Because they always sell out the PS3's before the next shipment just from people asking they don't bother to bring them out.


I think Anthony was probably right. At this point if you want one, just call around and some local store has one. It's not like the Wii where the next shipment is coming in March. So Sony currently is meeting their supply and demand curve just about right. If they start making more of them, they will have to lower the price to induce more demand. So yeah, next week - and if things don't change the A2 in a few months; although my wife may have words about getting both.

thom


ps. not much help eight hours later, but the many, many times I've burned myself I have found anything

There have been tests that show most people cannot tell the difference between even 128kps mp3 and the same track on cd.Never heard of those before and can anyone post a link to any of those tests?


Again you prove my point. When it comes to my posts you can't see them without putting on anti-MS glasses.No, I just use Microsoft in my examples since they happen to be a supporter of HD DVD and because that was a good example.


BTW, if what you are saying is correct, then Sun (with their BD-J) is the major cause of format warFunny idea, and I guess that depends on how you look at it. For instance if someone burns down your business because you didn't pay them "protection money" than in a messed up kind of way it is your fault for not paying them. I guess using that same logic the BDA is also at fault because they didn't give in to the HDi demand that Microsoft made.


So if BDA amended their spec to allow either HDi or BD-J, Microsoft would abandon Toshiba and Universal? :eek:Surprising isn't it? Strip away all the supposed reasons that Microsoft has for supporting HD DVD in this format war and at the end of the day it really is just about HDi and BD-J.

Oh, it's very simple. I want to use the highest possible BW that a given format can handle. IMHO, you go to a lower BW because you have to, not because you want to. So for HD DVD, I'd want 27V/3A. For BD, I'd want 40V/8A. If you can fit lossless in the above, then I am all for it. If you have to reduce the BW for Video to accomodate lossless Audio, then I would oppose.

The above values are what I am looking for regardless of the codecs used. I am looking forward to see what 40Mbps AVC or VC1 can do.
I am pretty sure that Blu-ray release of Flightplan and Casanova already meet this criteria. They are both authored in VC-1 and hit peak bitrates in the 40s according to the meter in PS3. I don't think you can author a disc with an average bitrate of 40V/8A, because of lack of headroom.

Sorry you felt you had to rant. Better luck with logic next time.

Last time I checked ISO makes a lot of standards which helps both the industry and consumers.


My rant was against ISO. I design medical devices. First four years was heart ablation catheters, next two was drug inhalation devices, next four was elctrosurgical instruments for joints, spine, brain, ding dong, hoo hah (this is a family forum so use your imagination), and tonsils. Now I am at a startup specializing in ENT devices. In other words; if you ever have trouble with your ticker, get diabetes, wreck your joints while running, get tonsillitus, spinal tumors, prostate cancer, or massively infected sinuses, some doc may end up working on you with one of my toys (be very very afraid).

In the last ten years I have had to delve through a mountain of ISO requirements; more paperwork each year than I had to read in college - not exagerating. They are wordy, poorly written, and in no way ever cover every situation. I really, really, really don't think you want new formats to start there. You think development takes a long time now? We would never have HD if they got involved.

thom

I am pretty sure that Blu-ray release of Flightplan and Casanova already meet this criteria. They are both authored in VC-1 and hit peak bitrates in the 40s according to the meter in PS3. I don't think you can author a disc with an average bitrate of 40V/8A, because of lack of headroom.If they wanted to do CBR of 48Mbps with no extras and there was no other overhead, they could do:

48Mbps / 8 = 6MBps
50GB / 6MBps = 8333 seconds
8333 seconds = ~139 minutes or 2 hours and 19 minutes

I'm not sure how much other overhead there is on average though.

--Darin

So you are saying that the early BD encodes, you know, the ones done after the standards were already in set, that were widely criticized for their poor quality, and about which Sony defended their use of MPEG2 and their wonderful encoder, were figments of our imagination?What did those early BD releases have to do with the BD specifications? Nothing. Same quality, or even worse, content could be released on HD DVD at any time. The specifications of both formats do not mandate a minimum level of picture or audio quality.

Never heard of those before and can anyone post a link to any of those tests?

http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html

http://pcworld.about.com/news/Oct022001id64123.htm

But at this point I think most of the benefits of competition between the formats have been achieved (more features, better PQ, etc.) and the consumer is only being harmed by the ongoing war given that it is greatly slowing overall adoption of high-def optical media.You are exactly right. If this is the case then please tell me why work is still continuing on Blu-ray? There is a format that has more features, better PQ, etc. as you say...and, sorry, it's not your beloved Blu-ray!

Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
But at this point I think most of the benefits of competition between the formats have been achieved (more features, better PQ, etc.) and the consumer is only being harmed by the ongoing war given that it is greatly slowing overall adoption of high-def optical media.


Much of the features may depend upon the final AACS agreement which after years of bickering has no agreement in sight. So it is hard to say the two formats are now cast in stone and don't still need some prodding by competition. There are NO current products by either camp guaranteed to meet the final specifications, assuming those ever even arrive.

- Tom

I am pretty sure that Blu-ray release of Flightplan and Casanova already meet this criteria. They are both authored in VC-1 and hit peak bitrates in the 40s according to the meter in PS3. I don't think you can author a disc with an average bitrate of 40V/8A, because of lack of headroom.
I don't know how accurate that meter is. And I suspect it's measuring total data rate, not just for video.

I don't know how accurate that meter is. And I suspect it's measuring totaldata rate, not just for video.It lists both the audio and the video separately, so I wouldn't expect it to show the total as the video rate. Not sure how accurate it is exactly, but I was able to estimate the average bitrate for one to pretty close to what somebody got using the filesize method.

With the XBOX360 add-on to a Mac laptop the bitrate meter showed about 19Mbps constant for one very difficult scene in "Batman Begins", which matches up pretty well with what the peak bitrate would have been for the video (not combination of everything). If/when BB comes out for Blu-ray I could try the same scene in the PS3 and see what it reports.

--Darin

I remeber a number of BD supporters saying that the key would be to watch sales of The Departed on both formats. Check it out.

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/index.cfm

Despite the fact that the BD version is $4 less in price, the numbers are very close.And given that The Departed is the first decent title HD DVD owners have had offered them in weeks, it's no surprise it would be selling well. On the other hand Blu-ray owners have had lots of ways to spend their money over the last month...

I really, really, really don't think you want new formats to start there. You think development takes a long time now? We would never have HD if they got involved.

Possibly ... but HiDef DVD has taken a long time to start off as well.

My point was, there should be an independant body that sets the standard and that should be available to everyone for nothing more than an administrative fee. That is the way to get to a real universal standard.

As for BD-50 providing superior playback to HD-DVD, I haven't seen evidence of it yet.Stripping aside everything else, BD50 provides 66% more capacity and 60% more bandwidth than HD DVD can offer. Are you saying there is no possibility that this extra headroom will result in better PQ and/or AQ? If we buy your argument that it hasn't, a primary reason would be that most of the titles released in both formats are being released using the same video encode, which obviously isn't going to look better on one format than the other.

No, I just use Microsoft in my examples since they happen to be a supporter of HD DVD and because that was a good example.

And you expect me (and all other AVS posters) to beleive that ? What do you think, we were all born yesterday ? :p


I guess using that same logic the BDA is also at fault because they didn't give in to the HDi demand that Microsoft made.

If there is a mafia in this fight it is the domineering BD group. And the little rant by talk that three companies are not toeing the line confirms that.

All during the early portion of the launch, your position (and apparently the public face of most BDA companies) was that, while HD DVD was eating your lunch, nobody in BDA-land was worried, because it was terribly early in the game, and everybody knew that success over the long-haul was what mattered. Now as soon as BD has gained some traction HD DVD should pack up shop and go away, because they are impeding progress.Blu-ray has always had better specs and vendor support, it has just taken time for those paper advantages to translate to real ones (more players sold, more available titles, etc.). If there were a credible reason to believe that the strong trend in favor of Blu-ray would reverse and HD DVD would regain the lead I'd buy your argument, but I don't see any suggestion of what would cause that change. Cheap Chinese players are the only possible reason I can see anyone suggesting HD DVD will retake the lead, and personally I don't think that strategy has a prayer (people look to trusted names when buying a new format, not Shinco and Konka).
Your characterization of MS as a benefactor should both format's fail is not grounded in anything that I can see. On the contrary, MS would benefit to a greater or lesser extent should either format succeed (they have IP in both). Furthermore, the more established HD (ostensibly with VC-1 seeing significant usage) becomes, the greater demand for other HD services they may offer (downloads via XBox Live, running managed copy services, their IPTV initiatives, etc...)Sorry, Steve, MS has far more to gain by a download-centric world than they do by the relatively small patent fees they receive from VC-1. Windows sales, Xbox 360 sales, further Windows Media lock-in, Zune, ancillary hardware and software (mice, anti-virus, etc.), all would see increased revenue in a PC-centric download world. Virtually any analyst will tell you that Microsoft would be far better off in a PC-centric download world than even a world where HD DVD is prevalent.
So you are saying that the early BD encodes, you know, the ones done after the standards were already in set, that were widely criticized for their poor quality, and about which Sony defended their use of MPEG2 and their wonderful encoder, were figments of our imagination?No, but I'm saying they don't need HD DVD to have incentive to improve on that. If Fox, Disney, or Warner are shipping better-looking titles than Sony, then Sony will clearly suffer if they don't rise to the occasion.

Stripping aside everything else, BD50 provides 66% more capacity and 60% more bandwidth than HD DVD can offer. Are you saying there is no possibility that this extra headroom will result in better PQ and/or AQ? If we buy your argument that it hasn't, a primary reason would be that most of the titles released in both formats are being released using the same video encode, which obviously isn't going to look better on one format than the other.

the space is there favoring Blu ray, but it has not been a factor for HD DVD given the FACTS that HD DVD releases contain more supplements than Blu ray. Also on the bandwith spec is not a factor either because HD DVD PQ overall has been better than Blu ray.

And given that The Departed is the first decent title HD DVD owners have had offered them in weeks, it's no surprise it would be selling well. On the other hand Blu-ray owners have had lots of ways to spend their money over the last month... Well by that logic, HD DVD should do very well when the additional titles show up after the new title drought. ;)

Don't you think its funny how HD DVD sales have actually been maintaining their historical sales trends without dropping much, even with the lack of any new titles? Sure Blu-ray has surged, but HD DVD has stayed relatively consistent.

Doesn't that imply that there are new HD DVD player owners that are buying the older released catalog titles at the same high attach rate as the earlier HD DVD 1st generation owners did?

What happens when they all have new releases to buy?

Stripping aside everything else, BD50 provides 66% more capacity and 60% more bandwidth than HD DVD can offer. Are you saying there is no possibility that this extra headroom will result in better PQ and/or AQ? If we buy your argument that it hasn't, a primary reason would be that most of the titles released in both formats are being released using the same video encode, which obviously isn't going to look better on one format than the other. Not if its consistently being wasted being used for LPCM and capacity wasting MPEG-2.

Besides most releases still are on 25GB discs which if my math is correct is still smaller than 30GB.

For those not following the Content Scoreboard, Blu-ray swept last week, with all 20 top-selling DVD's coming from studios who support Blu-ray (the top 14 of which are from exclusively Blu-ray studios), while only 2 of 20 are available from HD DVD-supportive studios. If Universal doesn't produce some better movies it may become irrelevant that they don't support Blu-ray!

Details and discussion here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789643&goto=lastpost).

Blu-ray has always had better specs and vendor support, it has just taken time for those paper advantages to translate to real ones (more players sold, more available titles, etc.). If there were a credible reason to believe that the strong trend in favor of Blu-ray would reverse and HD DVD would regain the lead I'd buy your argument, but I don't see any suggestion of what would cause that change. Cheap Chinese players are the only possible reason I can see anyone suggesting HD DVD will retake the lead, and personally I don't think that strategy has a prayer (people look to trusted names when buying a new format, not Shinco and Konka)..... How about new sales of boatloads of 2nd generation HD A2s? Howe about HD DVD sales being steady despite no new releases? How about when the newly release titles situation shifts with new HD DVD releases and HD DVD has a higher standalone player base to take advantage of it? How about further price reductions to HD DVD players coming closer to consumer friendly price points. How about the HD A20 coming to teh market taking away that 1080p talking point? How about the Matrix Trilogy HD DVD release?

Why do you think people buy Chinese CE products at Wal-mart? Its because Wal-mart is taking the place of the brand on the box from a customer security standpoint.

You don't see possible " credible reasons" because you either refuse to see them, or you are afraid to acknowledge them.

...The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be. Of course when one has this opinion of a competitor, it may be easy to overlook some credible possibilities.

If there were a credible reason to believe that the strong trend in favor of Blu-ray would reverse and HD DVD would regain the lead I'd buy your argument, but I don't see any suggestion of what would cause that change.

How about an example from recent past. UMD.

Blu-ray has always had better specs and vendor support, it has just taken time for those paper advantages to translate to real ones (more players sold, more available titles, etc.).

How about PQ ? Whats the point of more BW or size (when they use BD50, not BD25) if it doesn't result in better PQ ?

Stripping aside everything else, BD50 provides 66% more capacity and 60% more bandwidth than HD DVD can offer. Are you saying there is no possibility that this extra headroom will result in better PQ and/or AQ? If we buy your argument that it hasn't, a primary reason would be that most of the titles released in both formats are being released using the same video encode, which obviously isn't going to look better on one format than the other.
Or, as is in fact the case, studios have discovered that HD DVD's specs are sufficient, and that doing a seperate encode for BD doesn't provide an advantage in PQ or AQ.

Sorry, Steve, MS has far more to gain by a download-centric world than they do by the relatively small patent fees they receive from VC-1. Windows sales, Xbox 360 sales, further Windows Media lock-in, Zune, ancillary hardware and software (mice, anti-virus, etc.), all would see increased revenue in a PC-centric download world. Virtually any analyst will tell you that Microsoft would be far better off in a PC-centric download world than even a world where HD DVD is prevalent.

I think your use of the term "PC-centric download world", is disingenuous deflection. Surely you won't pretend that the Playstation brand isn't being positioned to exploit this emerging revenue stream for Sony, both in the short term, and when ancillary infrastructure is in place for mass-adoption a few years hence.......would you? No one could reasonably expect MS to abstain from leveraging technologies to enhance their present and future position in a similar fashion.

What did those early BD releases have to do with the BD specifications? Nothing. Same quality, or even worse, content could be released on HD DVD at any time. The specifications of both formats do not mandate a minimum level of picture or audio quality.

Except that HD-DVD launch titles looked great and continue to have a strong track record.

What's worse than the carelessness that those Blu-Ray launch titles showed was the eagerness to pretend that they looked great.

Neither format mandates minimum picture quality levels, however BD claims they have better picture quality in their marketing literature. That's as true as their claims that their launch titles looked great.

Sorry, Steve, MS has far more to gain by a download-centric world than they do by the relatively small patent fees they receive from VC-1. Windows sales, Xbox 360 sales, further Windows Media lock-in, Zune, ancillary hardware and software (mice, anti-virus, etc.), all would see increased revenue in a PC-centric download world. Virtually any analyst will tell you that Microsoft would be far better off in a PC-centric download world than even a world where HD DVD is prevalent.

You are getting confused - what you say is true for apple. They seemed to have sold more disney movies thr' iTunes than all the movies on HD DVD & BD put together.

If they wanted to do CBR of 48Mbps with no extras and there was no other overhead, they could do:

48Mbps / 8 = 6MBps
50GB / 6MBps = 8333 seconds
8333 seconds = ~139 minutes or 2 hours and 19 minutes

I'm not sure how much other overhead there is on average though.

--Darin

So how long before studios release a "Superbit" HD version of their blockbusters?

however long it takes to remaster 5th element

If this is the case then please tell me why work is still continuing on Blu-ray? There is a format that has more features, better PQ, etc. as you say...and, sorry, it's not your beloved Blu-ray!Just to point this out but any encoding done on HD DVD can also be used on Blu-ray so at the very least Blu-ray is equal to HD DVD in terms of picture quality. And that is only if you believe that an additional 18 Mbps of bandwidth and 20 GB of capacity is never going to benefit any encoding.


And you expect me (and all other AVS posters) to beleive that ?Actually nataraj I honestly don't know what you believe. I don't really know if you are just sensitive about any criticism of Microsoft, or if your accusations of "Microsoft hatred" are nothing more than a debate tactic.


If there is a mafia in this fight it is the domineering BD group.nataraj, it was Microsoft who chose to join the HD DVD side when they couldn't get HDi into the Blu-ray specs. Also if Microsoft had sat out the format war do you really think that Toshiba would have just given up?

So how long before studios release a "Superbit" HD version of their blockbusters? however long it takes to remaster 5th element Gotta live for the time that the first HD double dip shows up. :eek:

Why does it not surprise me that it may come from Sony? ;)

Your position would be very valid if BD was showing that it could deliver superior PQ results to HD-DVD. That, however, is not the case.


OK, let's take it for granted that VC-1 allows HD-DVD to get as good as it is going to get. Therefore BD will never, ever look better. Hasn't been proven necessarily, but from what I've seen of both I'd say better would be really freaking hard to do.

So why should we have BD? One word - business. Sony put it in the PS3, bought a studio, bribed Fox with BD+. HD-DVD may work great. HD-DVD may be cheaper. But it will take a lot to get Fox and Sony (and possibly Disney) to release on that format.

Alex used to say he was in favor of HD-DVD soley because it was the fastest way for HD to get into our hands.


I've always leaned toward BD soley because I thought Sony's plan would work. It may mean delaying the PS3, losing billions on their game system and the console war, many executives losing their jobs, and share holders barely holding even because of LCD sales.

I don't necessarily like their plan, I just look at it as inevitable. No amount of organizing, posting, blogs, or wonderful releases on HD-DVD is going to prevent a certain percentage of PS3 owners from buying movies. But at this point I don't think HD-DVD will necessarily die - I'm just positive BD won't.

And this is not UMD - the fact that sold as well as it did was a fluke. If they sold the movies for $5 it would have lasted, but more than DVD's?? wtf?

Gotta live for the time that the first HD double dip shows up. :eek:

Why does it not surprise me that it may come from Sony? ;)

Be afraid, be very afraid. I fear not only Sony will continue their practice of re-releasing discs every so often, maybe a new encode, maybe some new extras, maybe even with LESS content than previously... :eek:

But, (french accent) I shall resist. As I will buy very few of the DVD's I have on Blu-ray, I will also not buy re-releases just to get this or that extra feature. If the reviews of particular titles are not good, then I'll just wait for a new encode. If it ever happens... (Like TFE, which luckily, they are re-doing.)

This double dipping needs to stop, and we need to tell the studios with our wallets. (Right, like it will ever matter.)

Be afraid, be very afraid. I fear not only Sony will continue their practice of re-releasing discs every so often, maybe a new encode, maybe some new extras, maybe even with LESS content than previously... :eek:

But, (french accent) I shall resist. As I will buy very few of the DVD's I have on Blu-ray, I will also not buy re-releases just to get this or that extra feature. If the reviews of particular titles are not good, then I'll just wait for a new encode. If it ever happens... (Like TFE, which luckily, they are re-doing.)

This double dipping needs to stop, and we need to tell the studios with our wallets. (Right, like it will ever matter.)

In this thread I was convinced that downloads and player and local network storage abilities of both formats could stop some of that double dipping.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=788514

The premise was that could supplement the physical space on the discs buy combining them with downloaded content. I think both formats could do that.

Don't you think its funny how HD DVD sales have actually been maintaining their historical sales trends without dropping much, even with the lack of any new titles? Sure Blu-ray has surged, but HD DVD has stayed relatively consistent.
Don't know if I would call it funny... :o But I must say, I had expected more of a surge when the HD DVD add-on to the 360 was released. I mean, with the "guaranteed" HUGE attach-rate I did expect some indication that the add-on buyers were actually shopping movies. But you might be right, maybe they're just doing it more over time, thus keeping the total level pretty consistent. (When was the add-on released? Maybe the spike shown in september was it? http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/ Top graph, Show all)

Doesn't that imply that there are new HD DVD player owners that are buying the older released catalog titles at the same high attach rate as the earlier HD DVD 1st generation owners did?

What happens when they all have new releases to buy?
I fully expect the "blockbusters" to sell really well on HD DVD, even possibly more than Blu-ray titles. Two reasons mainly: 1) HD DVD owners are starving for content, and 2) There will be more "blockbusters" available for for Blu-ray over the same period, so people might be more picky. Most big titles though, will sell more on Blu-ray. IMHO.

In this thread I was convinced that downloads and player and local network storage abilities of both formats could stop some of that double dipping.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=788514

The premise was that could supplement the physical space on the discs buy combining them with downloaded content. I think both formats could do that.They could do it like seems to have happened with the XBOX360 (and will probably happen with others). The type of content that used to come on the game discs now gets held back and charged for as extra on top of what people already paid for the game. We'll see.

--Darin

Sales figures, from Axelmusic.com (European).:


.............BLU-RAY...HD-DVD
Weekly.....31.1%......68.9%
Monthly....29.0%......71.0%
Yearly......18.2%......81.8%

Releases....229.........195

* Based on AxelMusic.com sales

Sales figures, from Axelmusic.com (European).:


.............BLU-RAY...HD-DVD
Weekly.....31.1%......68.9%
Monthly....29.0%......71.0%
Yearly......18.2%......81.8%

Releases....229.........195

* Based on AxelMusic.com salesAre there that many releases in Europe, or are they talking about North American releases? Is this a place for importing titles from the US, or just buying titles in Europe?

--Darin

Don't you think its funny how HD DVD sales have actually been maintaining their historical sales trends without dropping much, even with the lack of any new titles?There should be more and more HD DVD players all the time and if you are right about them adding 100k players per month starting in February, then there should be a lot of new players out there. As far as new titles, there aren't as many as it would be nice to have, but in the top 10 rankings right now, there are only two titles on the HD DVD side that were released in 2006 (Batman Begins), and one of those was December 19th (Casino). The Blu-ray side has 3 titles in its top 10 that were released in 2006. That of course can change but this is what it shows right now.

If what is the best indicator to you is the number of titles that are in the top 1000, then HD DVD has not maintained the pace it was setting from the middle of October to the middle of November of last year. Things may have been tougher then with Christmas sales of DVDs starting, but that goes for all of these rankings.

--Darin

Are there that many releases in Europe, or are they talking about North American releases? Is this a place for importing titles from the US, or just buying titles in Europe?

--Darin

They sell both US and EU titles. ;)

Are there that many releases in Europe, or are they talking about North American releases? Is this a place for importing titles from the US, or just buying titles in Europe?

--Darin

Mostly North American releases. It's a good site (in Denmark) for Europeans to get HD DVDs and BDs without getting hit for taxes.

Except that HD-DVD launch titles looked great and continue to have a strong track record. But if they came out of BD instead, would they still have looked as good? IMHO, yes.

They could do it like seems to have happened with the XBOX360 (and will probably happen with others). The type of content that used to come on the game discs now gets held back and charged for as extra on top of what people already paid for the game. We'll see.

--Darin I agree.

If its free its great. If it has free stuff and buyable extras for a token small price its ok. If its all extra charges it rots.

But I think the Xbox live model scales up well, and they will have to charge less for a movie audiance. Plus extra soundtracks , user shared content like bookmarks and marketing things like trailers and fresh content should always and probably will be free.

It's February and I have yet to see one in a store. I don't frequent Gamestop, but have been in many a Target, BestBuy, CC, and CompUSA since launch.

Maybe they just didn't ship any to the SF Bay Area?

There's literally a stack of them at the Electronics Boutique at the mall in Tysons (near DC). They have them in the local Gamestops here as well.

a primary reason would be that most of the titles released in both formats are being released using the same video encode, which obviously isn't going to look better on one format than the other.

The primary reason, in my opinion, is that there is diminishing returns to adding more bits. Eventually you get to the point where the added bits aren't noticed by the vast majority of users, and after that point adding bits has a trivial effect on quality. It appears that point has been well surpassed by HD DVD. That's why Blu-ray's bitrate advantage is a paper one, that yields very little real world effect.

Or, as is in fact the case, studios have discovered that HD DVD's specs are sufficient, and that doing a seperate encode for BD doesn't provide an advantage in PQ or AQ.

Here is my Blu-ray analogy of the day:

A man walks into a car dealership. The sales mans comes over to him and try's to explain why he should buy the more expensive Blue car over the more affordable red one.

"The blue car is superior to the red," said the salesman, "It has a Holly carburator, a newly designed crank shaft, and an X-brand engine block, and, and,..." and the dealer went on to name a dozen specific items on the Blue car.

"Well does it go faster?" asked the customer.
"No'" replied the dealer.
"Does it get better gas milage?"
No.
"Will it last longer?"
No.
"Is it more comfortable?"
no.

"So in what way is the blue car superior to the red?" wondered the customer.

"Well," said the salesman, "it's got a Holly carburator, a newly designed crank shaft, and an X-brand engine block, and, and..."

What did those early BD releases have to do with the BD specifications? Nothing. Same quality, or even worse, content could be released on HD DVD at any time. The specifications of both formats do not mandate a minimum level of picture or audio quality.

That's my point. My response was to Talk's allegation that:

...both...formats are better as a result. But as I just posted these benefits are mostly "used up" given that both formats specifications are set.

Talk is using this logic to support the idea that all of the benefit of competition had already been realized at the time the standards had been set. IOW: It appears that Talk will throw HD DVD a bone for forcing them to adopt advanced codecs into the book standards, but since then he feels that competition from HD DVD is simply a nuisance that's not pushing the SotA along, and they should just capitulate.

However, when you look at the situation with regards to things that took place, or indeed are taking place, AFTER the standards had been set, such as:

- PQ
- Interactivity
- Hardware pricing
- Deck hardware capability (aka profiles)
- Title #'s released
- etc...

it seems that competition is improving things NOW. Hence Talk's allegation rings a tad hollow.

Stripping aside everything else, BD50 provides 66% more capacity and 60% more bandwidth than HD DVD can offer. Are you saying there is no possibility that this extra headroom will result in better PQ and/or AQ? If we buy your argument that it hasn't, a primary reason would be that most of the titles released in both formats are being released using the same video encode, which obviously isn't going to look better on one format than the other.

Not necessarily. The idea that a given size/rate is sufficient for the majority (not ALL, necessarily) of movies, and that additional space is past the point of diminishing returns is even more likely.

If I need to move a couple dozen ~2MB Word dics around then my 128 Mb USB thumb drive works just as well as my 1 GB thumb drive.

So why should we have BD? One word - business. Sony put it in the PS3, bought a studio, bribed Fox with BD+. HD-DVD may work great. HD-DVD may be cheaper. But it will take a lot to get Fox and Sony (and possibly Disney) to release on that format.

Only way to get HD mainstream is to release inexpensive players fast. That will only happen with HD DVD. By the time BD players get to be inexpensive - the train would have left the station - like it happened with SACD.

And Sony/Fox don't get a veto on customers :p

The primary reason, in my opinion, is that there is diminishing returns to adding more bits. Eventually you get to the point where the added bits aren't noticed by the vast majority of users, and after that point adding bits has a trivial effect on quality. It appears that point has been well surpassed by HD DVD. That's why Blu-ray's bitrate advantage is a paper one, that yields very little real world effect.

We've heard that song and dance before. Amir claimed average bit rates over the mid teens had little or no effect on VC-1.

Yet there are plenty of titles with much higher VC-1 bit rates.

Blu-ray has always had better specs and vendor support, it has just taken time for those paper advantages to translate to real ones (more players sold, more available titles, etc.). If there were a credible reason to believe that the strong trend in favor of Blu-ray would reverse and HD DVD would regain the lead I'd buy your argument, but I don't see any suggestion of what would cause that change. Cheap Chinese players are the only possible reason I can see anyone suggesting HD DVD will retake the lead, and personally I don't think that strategy has a prayer (people look to trusted names when buying a new format, not Shinco and Konka).

None of which addresses the point of your post I was referring to: you've characterized this as a long-haul game while BD was behind, and at the point they've reached parity, you proclaim HD DVD should capitulate. Goose. Gander.

And your statement implies that the superior paper specs would have automatically translated to envelope pushing, when many of us recognize that without continued competition, they may well have been checkbox items on paper while Sony pushed their MPEG encoder...

Sorry, Steve, MS has far more to gain by a download-centric world than they do by the relatively small patent fees they receive from VC-1. Windows sales, Xbox 360 sales, further Windows Media lock-in, Zune, ancillary hardware and software (mice, anti-virus, etc.), all would see increased revenue in a PC-centric download world. Virtually any analyst will tell you that Microsoft would be far better off in a PC-centric download world than even a world where HD DVD is prevalent.

Do you have something to back that other than it being your opinion? Like something shows that for once analysts have decided to not disagree and they all share the same opinion on this?

In any case, your quote that, "No one (except Microsoft) will benefit if both formats die due to lack of consumer adoption..." states that MS categorically will benefit if the disc formats die. I can only assume that you mean that their download service then automatically thrives.

The far more likely scenario is that the death of the HD disc formats is a failure for HD to thrive in general, and that HD downloads would just as likely whither on the vine.


No, but I'm saying they don't need HD DVD to have incentive to improve on that. If Fox, Disney, or Warner are shipping better-looking titles than Sony, then Sony will clearly suffer if they don't rise to the occasion.

1) So competition within the SAME camp is OK, and healthy but competition from a rival camp is unnecessary?

2) Those studios would have automatically produced these better looking titles without any external pressure to do so, right? And somebody like Disney wouldn't have dreamt about publishing a so-so version now, and then a much better transfer later to double dip, right?

Please.

We've heard that song and dance before. Amir claimed average bit rates over the mid teens had little or no effect on VC-1.

Yet there are plenty of titles with much higher VC-1 bit rates.

Which proves nothing. Thanks anyways though.

Here is my Blu-ray analogy of the day:

A man walks into a car dealership. The sales mans comes over to him and try's to explain why he should buy the more expensive Blue car over the more affordable red one.

"The blue car is superior to the red," said the salesman, "It has a Holly carburator, a newly designed crank shaft, and an X-brand engine block, and, and,..." and the dealer went on to name a dozen specific items on the Blue car.

"Well does it go faster?" asked the customer.
"No'" replied the dealer.
"Does it get better gas milage?"
No.
"Will it last longer?"
No.
"Is it more comfortable?"
no.

"So in what way is the blue car superior to the red?" wondered the customer.

"Well," said the salesman, "it's got a Holly carburator, a newly designed crank shaft, and an X-brand engine block, and, and..."

Who needs BLU-RAT.??

:D

Which proves nothing. Thanks anyways though.

It proves your claims about diminishing returns are hollow.

Stripping aside everything else, BD50 provides 66% more capacity and 60% more bandwidth than HD DVD can offer. Are you saying there is no possibility that this extra headroom will result in better PQ and/or AQ? If we buy your argument that it hasn't, a primary reason would be that most of the titles released in both formats are being released using the same video encode, which obviously isn't going to look better on one format than the other.
OK, somebody has to straighten this out for me. If BD burns through it's 50 GB disk capacity 60% faster than HD (because of the 60% higher bandwidth), then the BD disk has effectively reduced its record time by 60%. The disks keep spinning at their same rates no matter what the average or peak bit rates are, so in effect this means there is no difference in HD and BD disk capacity (BD=0.6*50) except BD can hit higher peaks. The difference between average and peak bit rate periods is left unused on the disk.

We've heard that song and dance before. Amir claimed average bit rates over the mid teens had little or no effect on VC-1.

Yet there are plenty of titles with much higher VC-1 bit rates. A higher VC-1 bit rate doesn't mean it couldn't be done with less.

No reason to leave bits or capacity on the table if all the other stuff fits and still doesn't fill a 30GB disc.

Also the first discs released did not use as optimized an encoder as newer releases.

If you can point to quality consistently suffering because of VC-1 bit rates, that would be another matter. But just because a disc is full, doesn't mean it had to be that way.

What's going to happen when they start putting extras in HD on HD-DVD discs?

Or will they?

Would that mean that they'd have to dial down the bitrates from the main feature from what they are today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by skogan
Which proves nothing. Thanks anyways though.


It proves your claims about diminishing returns are hollow.

It proves that people fill the space available to them, why wouldn't they? When I cut a DVD I just naturally burn it at as high of a bit-rate as is allowable.

When I double-dip on a DVD, it is because of a new master whose improvements have been verified by some impartial third party. I don't just assume it's going to look better because of a number.

What's going to happen when they start putting extras in HD on HD-DVD discs?

Or will they?

Would that mean that they'd have to dial down the bitrates from the main feature from what they are today?

I think you ought to look at is what you are actually seeing and hearing. If HD-DVD is putting out a product that is efficient enough to look as good or better than Blu-ray's less efficient solution, then it's not a real-world issue. Right?

What's going to happen when they start putting extras in HD on HD-DVD discs?

Or will they?

Would that mean that they'd have to dial down the bitrates from the main feature from what they are today?

I don't see any issues with adding HD extras with HD DVD. Assuming a 2hr movie has a average total bitrate of 24mbps (just to be generous), that would require less than 22gb for the main feature leaving another 8gb for extras. Extras don't need lossless sound or need to be perfect/visually transparent either, nor are there the need for high bitrates b/c it's not always fast motion content. They can easily get away and do well in pq with lower bitrates for HD extras.

I think you ought to look at is what you are actually seeing and hearing. If HD-DVD is putting out a product that is efficient enough to look as good or better than Blu-ray's less efficient solution, then it's not a real-world issue. Right?

HD-DVD is the less efficient solution. BD provides 66% more storage space and allows that greater amount of storage to be accessed 60% faster (48mbps vs. 30mbps) than HD-DVD.

All of the HD-DVD supporters liked to claim that BD discs were too hard and expensive to make. We now know that is not the truth. The basic HW engineering of HD-DVD is totally inferior to BD and cost the same to produce discs with much less capacity.

So if you have a short film, use BD25 with AVC and longer films can use BD50 with AVC and still include lossless audio and all kinds of supplements up to the max of the 50GB storage space.

b2b

And given that The Departed is the first decent title HD DVD owners have had offered them in weeks, it's no surprise it would be selling well. On the other hand Blu-ray owners have had lots of ways to spend their money over the last month...

You do know this can be just as easily flipped the other way, right? Not surprised Blu-Ray is doing well though ... plenty of new releases, and 1.5 million PS3's are sitting out there with nothing to do ... since ... there are no new games. :p

What's going to happen when they start putting extras in HD on HD-DVD discs?The same thing they're doing now, I'd imagine. If there isn't that much in HD, pop it on the same disc. If there's a good bit, slap it on a second disc. It's not that big a deal.

HD-DVD is the less efficient solution. BD provides 66% more storage space and allows that greater amount of storage to be accessed 60% faster (48mbps vs. 30mbps) than HD-DVD.

All of the HD-DVD supporters liked to claim that BD discs were too hard and expensive to make. We now know that is not the truth. The basic HW engineering of HD-DVD is totally inferior to BD and cost the same to produce discs with much less capacity.

So if you have a short film, use BD25 with AVC and longer films can use BD50 with AVC and still include lossless audio and all kinds of supplements up to the max of the 50GB storage space.

b2b

And of course all these "advantages" are obvious during playback right? :rolleyes:

Is the replication cost info still coming from the anecdotal information on that one guy's blog, or are we privy to what is actually being spent?

And of course all these "advantages" are obvious during playback right? :rolleyes:

Is the replication cost info still coming from the anecdotal information on that one guy's blog, or are we privy to what is actually being spent?

I would guess they are more obvious to the compressionist during the encode process. Not having to spend weeks of time to "fit the foot to the shoe" doing segment re-encoding because of the low bitrate headroom that HD-DVD offers.

As to the article on replication costs, that is the only one I have ever seen that actually quotes dollar cost comparisons between the two formats. Up until that article the only thing we have heard is rumors with no other information than "BD costs more than HD-DVD". If someone can provide better numbers then do so and we can discuss.

b2b

What's going to happen when they start putting extras in HD on HD-DVD discs?

Or will they?

Would that mean that they'd have to dial down the bitrates from the main feature from what they are today?
Universal's recent release of "Hollywood land" has HD extras.
The PQ is very nice on this disc.

I would guess they are more obvious to the compressionist during the encode process. Not having to spend weeks of time to "fit the foot to the shoe" doing segment re-encoding because of the low bitrate headroom that HD-DVD offers. .

b2b

Sounds like an exciting and rewarding career. :D


As to the article on replication costs, that is the only one I have ever seen that actually quotes dollar cost comparisons between the two formats. Up until that article the only thing we have heard is rumors with no other information than "BD costs more than HD-DVD". If someone can provide better numbers then do so and we can discuss.

b2b

I read that blog, it should take more than that to say affirmatively that the worm has turned.

We now know that is not the truth.
b2b

I don't agree with that at all. If you were talking about price, as opposed to cost, then there would be at least some level of agreement, but even then we would need the unsubsidized price of large scale reproduction.

But I haven't seen much of anything that refutes the notion that the cost are the same.

Edit: I haven't read that article you're referencing, so I'll go back and read it to see if it talks about cost or price.

Edit #2: In the article that you are referencing, they use the word "cost" a lot, but they are using it as a substitute for "price." I don't see anywhere where it says the cost are lower. Price is sensitive to supply and demand, where cost aren't, although there should be at least some relationship between price and cost.

Sounds like an exciting and rewarding career. :D



I read that blog, it should take more than that to say affirmatively that the worm has turned.

The comments of cjplay should provide insight into the extra work that is needed to shoehorn some titles into the restrictive limitations of the HD-DVD format.
Very interesting idea. They could expand the capabilities of the audio and secondary decoder while 29.4 stays the same for video. That would satisfy my ecstasy and make my job easier. Since interpretation is everything, let me clarify that. Higher PBR's usually mean less reencoding, that's it. We've made 14/19 work before, but it took a couple weeks to get there. 14/25 may have been done quicker... That's mainly why I want a higher read rate, purely selfish reasons. It could mean more/better audios, but that would still affect disc fullness and thus negatively affect the feature's ABR. VC-1's efficient, but not a miracle-worker. Older features can still require ABR's in the 15-17 range while newer titles will do fine at 10-12Mbits.

Cjplay.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8593192&&#post8593192

BD disc replication costs have only one way to go and that's down. That's the nature of repetitive manufacturing processes. In any case, whatever the costs are, they haven't hindered the production of available products.

b2b

In any case, whatever the costs are, they haven't hindered the production of available products.

b2b

I will agree with you on that much. Further, it may be that cost is irrelevent, price may be more important.

For Vivid Entertainment Group, the physical production of Blu-ray discs will come to about 35% of those movies' budgets, compared with 15% for HD DVDs and 10% for a standard DVD, said Vivid Chief Executive Steve Hirsch.
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-fi-porn12feb12,0,6262430.story?coll=cl-movies

I believe Vivid is publishing in both formats, which would make these actual numbers, not a hypothetical guess.

BD disc replication costs have only one way to go and that's down. That's the nature of repetitive manufacturing processes. In any case, whatever the costs are, they haven't hindered the production of available products.

b2b

The same is true of HD DVD replication costs. Mass production will bring down their cost and -- perhaps more important -- the cost of combo disks. Eventually combos will go for $15 a pop, and DVD owners will be building an advance library for their future HD DVD player. It is true that BD hardware and software will be coming down in price, but HD DVD hardware and software will not be standing still all that time. In the case of hardware especially, Blu-ray will be chasing lower and lower HD DVD costs.

The same is true of HD DVD replication costs. Mass production will bring down their cost and -- perhaps more important -- the cost of combo disks. Eventually combos will go for $15 a pop, and DVD owners will be building an advance library for their future HD DVD player. It is true that BD hardware and software will be coming down in price, but HD DVD hardware and software will not be standing still all that time. In the case of hardware especially, Blu-ray will be chasing lower and lower HD DVD costs.

Actually I don't think that HD-DVD HW manufacturing costs are any less than Blu-ray. What is different is that for the A2 and the Xbox addon the price that has been presented to the market is what is less. Ample evidence is provided by the MSRP for the XA2 @ $999.00 .

HD-DVD has it's "loss leaders" in the form of one standalone player and the addon. Blu-ray has the PS3 that provides BD movie playback at the entry level of $499.00 . Once you get past the entry level for both formats then all the HW pricing is more or less equal.

b2b

I read that blog, it should take more than that to say affirmatively that the worm has turned. well b2 is declaring that replication cost as being over. its kinda like Sony declaring the format war as being over. ;) So at least he's in sysnc with the spin from the rest of the BDA.

Others may disagree.

Like the porn studios and other niche producers actually trying to replicate content that say that DVD replication is 10% of their movie budget, HD DVD replication will be 15% and that Blu-ray , if they could find a replicator would be over 35% of their total movie budget, killing their profits.

err... 35% is over twice as expensive as 15%.. :)

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-fi-porn12feb12,0,6262430.story?coll=cl-movies

The porn industry is having trouble finding replicators to press Blu-ray DVDs.

HD DVD production methods are built on the old DVD standards, so the older machinery can be retooled to make the next-generation discs. But Blu-ray requires expensive new equipment. That's why there are only eight or so Blu-ray replicators in the world.

For Vivid Entertainment Group, the physical production of Blu-ray discs will come to about 35% of those movies' budgets, compared with 15% for HD DVDs and 10% for a standard DVD, said Vivid Chief Executive Steve Hirsch

Or, as is in fact the case, studios have discovered that HD DVD's specs are sufficient, and that doing a seperate encode for BD doesn't provide an advantage in PQ or AQ.

Alternatively, if Warner/Universal/Paramount can accomplish such amazing results with 30GB & 30Mbps, what could they accomplished with 50GB & 48Mbps. I am sure that many people would love to see the result should these studios ever choose to use BD to its fullest.

The primary reason, in my opinion, is that there is diminishing returns to adding more bits. Eventually you get to the point where the added bits aren't noticed by the vast majority of users, and after that point adding bits has a trivial effect on quality. It appears that point has been well surpassed by HD DVD. That's why Blu-ray's bitrate advantage is a paper one, that yields very little real world effect.

So would you make the same argument for audio? That 640kbps DD or 1.5 Mbps DTS is good enough and that it is diminishing to go to lossless because the vast majority of people won't notice the extra bits?

A lot more people can see video artifacts than hear audio artifacts. They can tell you the detailed description of the video artifact & the exact time timestamp that it occurs. Audio artifacts are often described in nebulous terms.

I'd make the argument that higher BW will always benefit video. You go to a lower BW because you have to, not because you want to.

Ben,

Amir implied that Paramount (and/or their post house) used AVC/MPEG4 for "Babel" because it saved them time over using VC-1 and tweaking to avoid blocking artifacts. Is that your position? If so, would higher bitrates help reduce the time needed for VC-1 of a movie like that?

--Darin

Just to point this out but any encoding done on HD DVD can also be used on Blu-ray so at the very least Blu-ray is equal to HD DVD in terms of picture quality.Actually, I believe that's not true. BD can't use the long GOP structures you can use in HD DVD, and so you can easily make a HD encoding that cannot be used on a BD. If I remember Ben's argument before, longer GOP's allow you to get more quality out of the same bitrate in some cases.

Actually, I believe that's not true. BD can't use the long GOP structures you can use in HD DVD, and so you can easily make a HD encoding that cannot be used on a BD. If I remember Ben's argument before, longer GOP's allow you to get more quality out of the same bitrate in some cases.You may have this confused with the titles that can be downloaded for XBOX360, which can have long GOPs. I believe that HD DVD is the one that is more limited, with about a .6 second GOP at the most, while Blu-ray allows about a second for GOP size (if my memory is right). You might not have wanted to mention that one. ;)

--Darin

So would you make the same argument for audio? That 640kbps DD or 1.5 Mbps DTS is good enough and that it is diminishing to go to lossless because the vast majority of people won't notice the extra bits?



I would. Or at least I would make an argument very similar to that.

You may have this confused with the titles that can be downloaded for XBOX360, which can have long GOPs. I believe that HD DVD is the one that is more limited, with about a .6 second GOP at the most, while Blu-ray allows about a second for GOP size (if my memory is right). You might not have wanted to mention that one. ;)

--Darin


I wonder how much of all of these advantages in BD will be/would be implemented without continuing completion? Sony and Lionsgate have proven with great regularity they can deliver DVDs that look pretty so-so with not an extra to be seen, save the annoying promos for unrelated product. Would they have changed their spots to stripes without having been shown-up? Will it last without completion, or would it be back to business as usual?

My point here being that quality starts with concern, and studio's willing to lavish time and $ on their releases. The fact that BD responds more to the stick than the carrot makes me think the stick is still pretty important.

Alternatively, if Warner/Universal/Paramount can accomplish such amazing results with 30GB & 30Mbps, what could they accomplished with 50GB & 48Mbps.

Considering the quality they are already at, probably little if anything more.

OK, somebody has to straighten this out for me. If BD burns through it's 50 GB disk capacity 60% faster than HD (because of the 60% higher bandwidth), then the BD disk has effectively reduced its record time by 60%. The disks keep spinning at their same rates no matter what the average or peak bit rates are, so in effect this means there is no difference in HD and BD disk capacity (BD=0.6*50) except BD can hit higher peaks. The difference between average and peak bit rate periods is left unused on the disk.
Quoting myself.....Since no one has contradicted me, I must be right. Everyone should now agree, and stop further posts that:
1. BD can handle longer movies than HD
2. BD can have more extras (time-wise)
3. BD can hold more TV episode seasons on fewer disks than HD

Quoting myself.....Since no one has contradicted me, I must be right. Everyone should now agree, and stop further posts that:
1. BD can handle longer movies than HD
2. BD can have more extras (time-wise)
3. BD can hold more TV episode seasons on fewer disks than HD
I was going to reply to your original post, but then I thought you must be joking! I still think you are. :)

If you are not joking, then make up your mind about how much bandwidth is good enough. Then we will talk! ;)

Quoting myself.....Since no one has contradicted me, I must be right. Everyone should now agree, and stop further posts that:
1. BD can handle longer movies than HD
2. BD can have more extras (time-wise)
3. BD can hold more TV episode seasons on fewer disks than HD

It doesn't run at the peak bitrate the entire length of the movie. Only when it needs it does the bit rate reach those peaks.

IOW a 60% increase in PBR doesn't mean there is a 60% increase in ABR.

There is a fixed max. bit capacity per unit of track length, and that capacity is "used" whether or not its written to the disk. BD uses its capacity 60% faster than HD. So both formats (DL) have about the same playing time. (50*0.6 = 30)

that capacity is "used" whether or not its written to the disk. BD uses its capacity 60% faster than HD. So both formats (DL) have about the same playing time. (50*0.6 = 30)

Are you certain of that?

Either that or the disk speed changes to match bit demand, and that's not practical or possible. (AFAIK)

Either that or the disk speed changes to match bit demand, and that's not practical or possible. (AFAIK)

The thing is, that makes sense to me, yet surely that fact would have been mentioned by the engineers among us by now if it were true. Maybe Darin will clear it up for us momentarily.

Quoting myself.....Since no one has contradicted me, I must be right. Everyone should now agree, and stop further posts that:
1. BD can handle longer movies than HD
2. BD can have more extras (time-wise)
3. BD can hold more TV episode seasons on fewer disks than HD
Why are the two upcoming BD Disney releases of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films being released as 2 disc sets?
I would think that since BD holds more that they could just release them on single discs.

More TV shows on a disc? Maybe If MPEG2 and PCM isn't used.. :p
Studios want more discs so they can justify the higher price maybe?

There is a fixed max. bit capacity per unit of track length, and that capacity is "used" whether or not its written to the disk. BD uses its capacity 60% faster than HD. So both formats (DL) have about the same playing time. (50*0.6 = 30)What you are saying is that since DVD9 (8.54GB) has 11.08Mbps transfer rate, its playing time would be less than 6,166 seconds (8,540 x 8 / 11.08). Is there no DVD which exceeds 1 hour 42 minutes run time? Yes, there are many.

a disc doesnt have to be read at its maximum rated bandwidth capacity.

There is a fixed max. bit capacity per unit of track length, and that capacity is "used" whether or not its written to the disk. BD uses its capacity 60% faster than HD. So both formats (DL) have about the same playing time. (50*0.6 = 30)
Okay, now I am sure you are joking! :)

Well, if not...

A lot depends on how an OPU is designed, but here is how it will work in general: Disc is spinning to support speed of 1.5x throughput (CLV -- the rpm will actually change). Now, let's assume that only half the bandwidth is used by the movie. In this case, the video processor will request chunks of data from the OPU side. That is, instead of getting sustained data stream at 54Mbps, data will be sent in bursts depending on the buffers in the video processors. In other words, data can still be read at the 54Mbps speed, but only in discrete bursts as required.

Speed is generally decided in the beginning. It is not common for a drive to run slower than 1x speed (stability issues). I would guess 1x speed would be supported in addition to 1.5x. These two options can be in addition to above.

Does it clarify anything?


PS: There is this small matter of retries, but that will complicate the explanation, so I will leave it alone. :)

Okay, now I am sure you are joking! :)

Well, if not...

A lot depends on how an OPU is designed, but here is how it will work in general: Disc is spinning to support speed of 1.5x throughput (CLV -- the rpm will actually change). Now, let's assume that only half the bandwidth is used by the movie. In this case, the video processor will request chunks of data from the OPU side. That is, instead of getting sustained data stream at 54Mbps, data will be sent in bursts depending on the buffers in the video processors. In other words, data can still be read at the 54Mbps speed, but only in discrete bursts as required.

Speed is generally decided in the beginning. It is not common for a drive to run slower than 1x speed (stability issues). I would guess 1x speed would be supported in addition to 1.5x. These two options can be in addition to above.

Does it clarify anything?


PS: There is this small matter of retries, but that will complicate the explanation, so I will leave it alone. :)

Thanks for that response. I had a strong feeling Wayne wasn't right, but I didn't know why he wasn't right. Now I know :)

Skogan, you're welcome. There are only a few things that I know, so when I get an opportunity, pleasure is all mine! :)

Either that or the disk speed changes to match bit demand, and that's not practical or possible. (AFAIK)

I think that's why we have RAM buffers - to divorce the disk read rate from the codecs input rate. The codec can read data from the buffer at the rate needed to decode the A/V. The disk drive can fill the buffer at the rate that it's mechanical system allows.

But if they came out of BD instead, would they still have looked as good? IMHO, yes.

But they didn't, and while we could dismiss this as bad luck, it's not. The BD companies and Sony in particular show every indication that they believe they can mail in this format victory.

The folks reponsible for the HD-DVD launch knew they were coming into this fight having to prove that they had a better choice for the consumer. They continue to work hard to lower the cost of players, improve VC1 etc. On the BD side it seems every improvement they have made has been in grudging answer to something already being delivered by HD-DVD.

Now that they are delivering equal picture quality to HD-DVD, Talk has decided that there's no more consumer benefit to the competition. Thanks, but no thanks.

We just bought our second HD-DVD player today in the form of a new HP Pavilion notebook with a built in HD-DVD drive, HDMI output port and a bunch of other cool features.

Started a new thread on Netflix and Blockbuster online and other DVD rental companies affect on the format war.

Discussion is welcome

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=804549

We've heard that song and dance before. Amir claimed average bit rates over the mid teens had little or no effect on VC-1.

Yet there are plenty of titles with much higher VC-1 bit rates.

I suppose if you enjoy watching bit rates....personally I like watching the movies. ;)

Please review my post below. It includes the two (BD exclusive) VC1 encoded BD-50s (Flight Plan and Casanova). These titles received the same scores for PQ as the 6 titles that were released in HD-DVD on VC1 and then subsequently released on BD-50 with the same VC1 encode.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9748905#post9748905

I'm watching to see if BD-50 can actually deliver better PQ than HD-DVD-30. The current data points we have say no. I agree with Skogan, I think the weakest link in the chain is not in either formats technical specs, but in other parts of the production process.

Actually I don't think that HD-DVD HW manufacturing costs are any less than Blu-ray. What is different is that for the A2 and the Xbox addon the price that has been presented to the market is what is less. Ample evidence is provided by the MSRP for the XA2 @ $999.00 .

HD-DVD has it's "loss leaders" in the form of one standalone player and the addon. Blu-ray has the PS3 that provides BD movie playback at the entry level of $499.00 . Once you get past the entry level for both formats then all the HW pricing is more or less equal.

b2b

Out of curiosity b2b, have you picked up your first BD player yet? or are you still watching SD DVD?

We just bought our second HD-DVD player today in the form of a new HP Pavilion notebook with a built in HD-DVD drive, HDMI output port and a bunch of other cool features. No, he's just complaining about us both owning two HD DVD players each. :rolleyes:

Why should the good b2b own a player?

After all, his hobby is arguing about the HD formats, not watching them :)

A lot depends on how an OPU is designed, but here is how it will work in general: Disc is spinning to support speed of 1.5x throughput (CLV -- the rpm will actually change). Now, let's assume that only half the bandwidth is used by the movie. In this case, the video processor will request chunks of data from the OPU side. That is, instead of getting sustained data stream at 54Mbps, data will be sent in bursts depending on the buffers in the video processors. In other words, data can still be read at the 54Mbps speed, but only in discrete bursts as required.

Speed is generally decided in the beginning. It is not common for a drive to run slower than 1x speed (stability issues). I would guess 1x speed would be supported in addition to 1.5x. These two options can be in addition to above.

Does it clarify anything?


PS: There is this small matter of retries, but that will complicate the explanation, so I will leave it alone. :)

Sorry, still not satisfied.

1. Can you show me where the BD-ROM spec says -up- to 1.5x
2. If it is variable, then it isn't 60% faster. At 1x speed the pitch of the data would have to increase 60% to maintain that advantage, and I seriously doubt that - that would have been the reason to increase it to 1.5x. At 1x it would be about the same data transfer speed.
3. Computer storage BD speed can be variable since it isn't realtime (and you can do retries)
4. I sort of doubt the video buffer size/speed would be the design limit - it would be the OPU/disk format read speed.

Looks like a bit of a shell game.

So who's playing Samu and who's playing Fatu on this little tag team.... ;)

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/h/headshrinkers/02.jpg

b2b
Out of curiosity b2b, have you picked up your first BD player yet? or are you still watching SD DVD?

Soon Only Not Yet :(

Sorry, still not satisfied.

1. Can you show me where the BD-ROM spec says -up- to 1.5x
2. If it is variable, then it isn't 60% faster. At 1x speed the pitch of the data would have to increase 60% to maintain that advantage, and I seriously doubt that - that would have been the reason to increase it to 1.5x. At 1x it would be about the same data transfer speed.
3. Computer storage BD speed can be variable since it isn't realtime (and you can do retries)
4. I sort of doubt the video buffer size/speed would be the design limit - it would be the OPU/disk format read speed.

Looks like a bit of a shell game.


OK, Wayne, sorry, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that this is a record player. Any digital media is NOT streamed off the disk "realtime", as you describe... it's read off in blocks (same as a hard drive, in fact I believe it uses a filesystem very similar to fat) and buffered in memory before being decoded and played. Since it IS buffered, the bitrate can vary all over the place and as long as the disk can pull new blocks off the disk faster than the maximum allowed bitrate (and yes, for BD it is 1.5x), it's fine. In fact, some higher end players (this goes for DVD as well) will have larger buffers, allowing the player to do more retries on lost blocks (because even on clean disks there are always misreads), effectively decreasing the chance of a skip.

I repeat, there are NO "blank spaces" on a BD, just as there are no blank spaces on DVD or CD for that matter. this isn't analog technology here, so the same thought process doesn't apply.

Out of curiosity b2b, have you picked up your first BD player yet? or are you still watching SD DVD?
No, he's just complaining about us both owning two HD DVD players each. :rolleyes:
Why should the good b2b own a player?

After all, his hobby is arguing about the HD formats, not watching them :)

Sorry guys, I got out "paying to be a beta tester" game a long time ago. ;) No more PC junk, CE junk or anything that costs dollars and takes up space in my "expensive and now useless stuff" museum (it's full to the brim). When the time is right and I can get what I want without any second thoughts, then things will happen, but not until then. When that happens there's nothing left to talk about (at least as far as I'm concerned).

The upside to that philosophy is that the balance sheets have "zero" on the debt side (and will stay that way)... :) YMMV

Or maybe I'm just waiting on Kosty's $199 dollar player that will end the "war".. :p

b2b

OK, Wayne, sorry, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that this is a record player. Any digital media is NOT streamed off the disk "realtime", as you describe... it's read off in blocks (same as a hard drive, in fact I believe it uses a filesystem very similar to fat) and buffered in memory before being decoded and played. Since it IS buffered, the bitrate can vary all over the place and as long as the disk can pull new blocks off the disk faster than the maximum allowed bitrate (and yes, for BD it is 1.5x), it's fine. In fact, some higher end players (this goes for DVD as well) will have larger buffers, allowing the player to do more retries on lost blocks (because even on clean disks there are always misreads), effectively decreasing the chance of a skip.

I repeat, there are NO "blank spaces" on a BD, just as there are no blank spaces on DVD or CD for that matter. this isn't analog technology here, so the same thought process doesn't apply.
Thanks for the explanation. You made me search around until I found a document that helps show that. I ran across a BD disk graphic that shows "real time recording area" but that means something different in BD. Also didn't know about fat's and what must be quasi random access. The spec itself is too dense for me to understand. Thanks again. Sorry if I raised any concern.

Sorry guys, I got out "paying to be a beta tester" game a long time ago. ;) No more PC junk, CE junk or anything that costs dollars and takes up space in my "expensive and now useless stuff" museum (it's full to the brim). When the time is right and I can get what I want without any second thoughts, then things will happen, but not until then. When that happens there's nothing left to talk about (at least as far as I'm concerned).

The upside to that philosophy is that the balance sheets have "zero" on the debt side (and will stay that way)... :) YMMV

Or maybe I'm just waiting on Kosty's $199 dollar player that will end the "war".. :p

b2b

How ironic that your own buying habits help prove out Kosty's points about player price points and mass adoption.

Sorry guys, I got out "paying to be a beta tester" game a long time ago. ;) No more PC junk, CE junk or anything that costs dollars and takes up space in my "expensive and now useless stuff" museum (it's full to the brim). When the time is right and I can get what I want without any second thoughts, then things will happen, but not until then. When that happens there's nothing left to talk about (at least as far as I'm concerned).

The upside to that philosophy is that the balance sheets have "zero" on the debt side (and will stay that way)... :) YMMV

Or maybe I'm just waiting on Kosty's $199 dollar player that will end the "war".. :p

b2b

To be fair, arguing about the formats has turned into a hobby for me to, although when my 360 comes back from repair I'll probably stop again.

Remember the rotation speed may or may not be fixed but, either way, the player is not required to skip to new tracks at any given rate. I may read an entire track (or maybe more) into memory and then sit there for as long as needed until it needs another. This can be random access, just like a hard drive which also doesn't constantly change speed.

- Tom

How ironic that your own buying habits help prove out Kosty's points about player price points and mass adoption.

I usually can't hold out past second generation (I've learned my lesson on going for first).

Second may still have a bug or two, but like first they're usually still built like a brick-$hithouse.

How ironic that your own buying habits help prove out Kosty's points about player price points and mass adoption.

Mass adoption isn't going to happen until there is sufficient availability of rental stock. The local Hollywood B&M store has handouts on the "new" disc formats, but still no titles to rent. I stopped buying DVDs about two years ago (no more room for them either ;) ) As far as older titles, I have about 10 that will be purchased in HD (and the most important will only be on BD). So all of this for me is a "going forward" enterprise, with rental of new title releases, with few disc purchases.

Content is what it's all about and there is damn little new that fluffs my skirt at the present time. :)

b2b

Only way to get HD mainstream is to release inexpensive players fast. That will only happen with HD DVD.Now that is an opinion being stated as a fact. And nataraj before you jump on me that is technically against forum rules.


By the time BD players get to be inexpensive - the train would have left the station - like it happened with SACD.nataraj, I know you don't like Blu-ray but besides stating your opinions as facts this doesn't even sound plausible. Blu-ray players may require more than HD DVD players in terms of requirements but in terms of actual cost I haven't seen any real evidence that Blu-ray players are considerably more expensive to make than HD DVD players. Toshiba is selling HD DVD players cheaper than Blu-ray players, but that is at best circumstantial evidence. After all how many HD DVD players under $1000 are being made by CE companies other than Toshiba?


A higher VC-1 bit rate doesn't mean it couldn't be done with less.No offense but this excuse is used far to often by people who want to believe that VC-1 is more efficient than its actual encodings suggest. VC-1 is more efficient than MPEG-2 but I notice that some people on this forum way to easily accept the opinion that it can produce great quality encodings at 10 to 12 Mbps when all actual evidence indicates that is only true for a small percentage of titles. I am for the use of advanced video codecs since I believe efficiency is a good thing to have but exaggeration in my opinion is not really needed.

Anyone else tired of hearing that the entry for blu-ray is 500? If you can point me to where I can find a ps3 for 500 I will buy it. Yes the 60gb is only 100 more but IT DOES make a difference to me and others. When I bought as 360 for 400 that was a stretch for me but I did it cause I really like games. Once again 500 is a stretch for me but I would do it cause I like games....but 600 IS too much of a stretch!

Now that is an opinion being stated as a fact. And nataraj before you jump on me that is technically against forum rules.

Not really.

Sony has stated it would be 2 to 3 years before Blu-ray players reach the $299-399 price point. HD-DVD has the discount Chinese players coming out this year.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789448&highlight=sony+2+to+3

You may have this confused with the titles that can be downloaded for XBOX360, which can have long GOPs. I believe that HD DVD is the one that is more limited, with about a .6 second GOP at the most, while Blu-ray allows about a second for GOP size (if my memory is right). You might not have wanted to mention that one.

Yep, Amir said so when talking about coding VC-1 for the utmost in BD:
If they only want to publish in BD, they can dial up all of those parameters. Note that pushing GOP size higher also increases seek time beyond HD DVD. So they may not be inclined to do it but it is available to them.

Mass adoption isn't going to happen until there is sufficient availability of rental stock. The local Hollywood B&M store has handouts on the "new" disc formats, but still no titles to rent. I stopped buying DVDs about two years ago (no more room for them either ;) ) As far as older titles, I have about 10 that will be purchased in HD (and the most important will only be on BD). So all of this for me is a "going forward" enterprise, with rental of new title releases, with few disc purchases.

Content is what it's all about and there is damn little new that fluffs my skirt at the present time. :)

b2b

I agree. I also expect the B&Ms to jump in before much longer since Netflix is already in the game.

So are you saying that you haven't bought any movies in the last two years? You sound like an ideal candidate for the combo SD/HD discs. ;)

Now that is an opinion being stated as a fact. And nataraj before you jump on me that is technically against forum rules.


nataraj, I know you don't like Blu-ray but besides stating your opinions as facts this doesn't even sound plausible. Blu-ray players may require more than HD DVD players in terms of requirements but in terms of actual cost I haven't seen any real evidence that Blu-ray players are considerably more expensive to make than HD DVD players. Toshiba is selling HD DVD players cheaper than Blu-ray players, but that is at best circumstantial evidence. After all how many HD DVD players under $1000 are being made by CE companies other than Toshiba?


No offense but this excuse is used far to often by people who want to believe that VC-1 is more efficient than its actual encodings suggest. VC-1 is more efficient than MPEG-2 but I notice that some people on this forum way to easily accept the opinion that it can produce great quality encodings at 10 to 12 Mbps when all actual evidence indicates that is only true for a small percentage of titles. I am for the use of advanced video codecs since I believe efficiency is a good thing to have but exaggeration in my opinion is not really needed.

On the subject of stating opinions as facts.....can you provide the details to support your statements regarding bit rates of titles and what VC1 requires to produce great results?

I agree. I also expect the B&Ms to jump in before much longer since Netflix is already in the game.

So are you saying that you haven't bought any movies in the last two years? You sound like an ideal candidate for the combo SD/HD discs. ;)

I take that back. I did buy the 2 disc set of Constantine for $7.99 (new copy, not used) across the street at the grocery store rental shop. I have bought some as gifts to the kids. New releases, not a one.

b2b

Now that is an opinion being stated as a fact. And nataraj before you jump on me that is technically against forum rules.

Great. You finally read the rules. I'll be waiting to see if you follow any :p

nataraj, I know you don't like Blu-ray but besides stating your opinions as facts this doesn't even sound plausible. Blu-ray players may require more than HD DVD players in terms of requirements but in terms of actual cost I haven't seen any real evidence that Blu-ray players are considerably more expensive to make than HD DVD players. Toshiba is selling HD DVD players cheaper than Blu-ray players, but that is at best circumstantial evidence. After all how many HD DVD players under $1000 are being made by CE companies other than Toshiba?

Since facts in the market do not constitute evidence for you - I suggest you make up your own facts to support your beleafs - like Colbert said once.

The primary reason, in my opinion, is that there is diminishing returns to adding more bits. Eventually you get to the point where the added bits aren't noticed by the vast majority of users, and after that point adding bits has a trivial effect on quality. It appears that point has been well surpassed by HD DVD. That's why Blu-ray's bitrate advantage is a paper one, that yields very little real world effect.

But Skogan, if your boss came and said to you Skogan I like you, I know I gave your increase last week, but I thought it over and I can pay you 50 cents more (hour, day, year, whatever your salary is based on) will you say no, diminishing returns, if it is not 10,100, 1000,10000 more I don't care? If your bank tells you we will increase your interest rate on your savings account by .1% do you say diminishing returns?

Diminishing returns is short for something needed to be sacrificed (and on limited media something always does) and we decided it will be this (in your example PQ)

Only way to get HD mainstream is to release inexpensive players fast. That will only happen with HD DVD.

Nataraj. Last April the cheapest MRSP for an HD DVD player was 500$ today it is 500$ in the meantime Toshiba even came out with their newer version and the MRSP did not go down and some features were dropped. Last June the cheapest BD player was the Samsung at 1000$ MRSP, today you can buy a PS3 for 500$ the only next generation BD player announced will be from Samsung for 800$ and more features then the previous version.

So far your theory does not look to hold water.

So far your theory does not look to hold water.

For 360 owner the price is $199. Chinese players are coming. Where have you been ?

The thing is, that makes sense to me, yet surely that fact would have been mentioned by the engineers among us by now if it were true. Maybe Darin will clear it up for us momentarily.

Skogan the answer is a bit of both. That is why all the machines have a buffer. The drive can't be switching speeds every fraction of a second (how could it, especially since the speed needed would be determined by what will come next). Ask him if what he said is true (must be also for HD DVD) to explain KK.

For 360 owner the price is $199

but they needed to make a 300$ down payement on a 360

Chinese players are coming. Where have you been ?


waiting at the store sinse Jan 2005 when I was told cheap Chinese HD DVD players were comming soon

For 360 owner the price is $199. Chinese players are coming. Where have you been ?Xbox add-on is just a HD DVD drive with some amount of flash memory, its price is not comparable to standalone players.

The price of Shinco's EVD player, which utilizes dirt cheap DVD drive, with no advanced interactivity, no persistent memory, no dual video decoder, no advanced audio decoder, no Ethernet connection, etc., etc., in China is 1,600 CNY ($206 USD). So, how much the price of "cheap Chinese HD DVD player" will be?

Nataraj. Last April the cheapest MRSP for an HD DVD player was 500$ today it is 500$ in the meantime Toshiba even came out with their newer version and the MRSP did not go down and some features were dropped. Last June the cheapest BD player was the Samsung at 1000$ MRSP, today you can buy a PS3 for 500$ the only next generation BD player announced will be from Samsung for 800$ and more features then the previous version.

So far your theory does not look to hold water.

The A2 can be found with very little effort for < $400. Good luck finding a 20gb PS3 for less than $500...... so MSRP pricing is irrelevant to the discussion, except with regard to the PS3.

Not really.Yes, what nataraj said really was an opinion. Unless someone creates a time machine there is no way in heck that he can prove what he said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9752431&&#post9752431).


Sony has stated it would be 2 to 3 years before Blu-ray players reach the $299-399 price point. HD-DVD has the discount Chinese players coming out this year.Just to point this out but the first thing you stated was an opinion made by Sony and the second thing you stated was an opinion that has been made by HD DVD supporters.


On the subject of stating opinions as facts.....can you provide the details to support your statements regarding bit rates of titles and what VC1 requires to produce great results?2Channel, not very fair going after my post while ignoring what nataraj said but regardless your question is reasonable.

Their are a few reasons I have for my belief, but before I get to those let me first get at that last part of your question and say that it is the root of the problem. "what VC1 requires to produce great results" is highly dependent on what is being encoded, the encoder being used, and the amount of time allowed for the encoding. As such simply because it is possible to get one specific movie encoded at 10 Mbps using VC-1 with great results does not mean that it can be done with most movies. That is something that is rather important to understand when one talks about video codecs.

As for why I believe that most current VC-1 encodings on HD DVD are not at 10 to 12 Mbps it is because of a few reasons. The first is because I have heard many times Amir explain away VC-1 encodings with high bit rates by saying that the studios were simply filling up the disc. And from what Don Eklund said most early VC-1 encodings had an average bit rate of 20 Mbps, which even including for audio tracks means they were far higher than 12 Mbps in video bit rate. And from what I have seen of average bit rates from VC-1 encodings that have been posted on AVS Forum very few of them looked to have a video bit rate near 12 Mbps. Finally I have heard of few HD DVD titles even up until today that are known to have a video bit rate of less than 12 Mbps. For all the reasons listed above I would be absolutely amazed if even 20% of current HD DVD titles had an average video bit rate of 12 Mbps or less. Of course something important to note is that I do believe that both advanced video codecs will improve in efficiency with time.


Great. You finally read the rules. I'll be waiting to see if you follow anynataraj, I take it this is the closest you are going to get to admitting that I was right about that?


Since facts in the market do not constitute evidence for you - I suggest you make up your own facts to support your beleafs - like Colbert said once.Come now nataraj just because HD DVD players are selling for less than Blu-ray players doesn't mean they cost significantly less than Blu-ray players. After all you know as well as I do that a product can be sold for less that what it costs to make. So such until you can prove what you said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9752431&&#post9752431) it is only an opinion.

But Skogan, if your boss came and said to you Skogan I like you, I know I gave your increase last week, but I thought it over and I can pay you 50 cents more (hour, day, year, whatever your salary is based on) will you say no, diminishing returns, if it is not 10,100, 1000,10000 more I don't care? If your bank tells you we will increase your interest rate on your savings account by .1% do you say diminishing returns?

Diminishing returns is short for something needed to be sacrificed (and on limited media something always does) and we decided it will be this (in your example PQ)

I agree Anthony, however we're still looking to see that there is any actual improvement.

So if my boss said "good news you got a raise!" but my paycheck didn't change, I'd feel that he was being less than honest with me.

But Skogan, if your boss came and said to you Skogan I like you, I know I gave your increase last week, but I thought it over and I can pay you 50 cents more (hour, day, year, whatever your salary is based on) will you say no, diminishing returns, if it is not 10,100, 1000,10000 more I don't care? If your bank tells you we will increase your interest rate on your savings account by .1% do you say diminishing returns?

Diminishing returns is short for something needed to be sacrificed (and on limited media something always does) and we decided it will be this (in your example PQ)


Lord what stretch :rolleyes: Can you save and accumulate the extra space on a disk and apply it to other disks? The amount of space on a disc is fixed, and it either can produce additional results at higher levels or not. Extra $ you can pool from every check and then apply to other things of your choice.

What's going to happen when they start putting extras in HD on HD-DVD discs?

Or will they?

Would that mean that they'd have to dial down the bitrates from the main feature from what they are today?

At this point they seem more interested in giving out the extras in SD on the other side of a flippy (disguised as a DVD side).

Gary

Talk is using this logic to support the idea that all of the benefit of competition had already been realized at the time the standards had been set.Steve, I didn't say that. I said most of the benefits of inter-format competition have been "used up". I further noted that, because the standards are set, there are limits to what further competition can do (i.e. new hardware features are probably unacceptable). I didn't say that once the standards were set competition no longer mattered; clearly the increased quality of Blu-ray releases demonstrates this.
So competition within the SAME camp is OK, and healthy but competition from a rival camp is unnecessary?At this point inter-format competition is far more damaging to the prospects for HD optical media than it is beneficial. Competition within a format helps the format (assuming the overall ecosystem remains healthy). Competition between formats during the time when both formats are struggling to survival hurts them both; were both of them clearly established it could be helpful (i.e. between PS2 and Xbox). But we're not there yet, nor is it likely we ever will be, as I simply don't think both formats can survive with sufficient profits for the ecosystem to keep them around.
In any case, your quote that, "No one (except Microsoft) will benefit if both formats die due to lack of consumer adoption..." states that MS categorically will benefit if the disc formats die. I can only assume that you mean that their download service then automatically thrives.Fine, others may benefit as well, but probably not the companies who are principals in the format battle. Whether it's their download service or someone else's, as long as Microsoft has 90+% of the PC OS market share they will benefit as well, probably moreso than the download provider given profit margins on Windows, Office, and the like.
The far more likely scenario is that the death of the HD disc formats is a failure for HD to thrive in general, and that HD downloads would just as likely whither on the vine.Sorry, if you think failure of Blu-ray and HD DVD means HD is going away altogether you're likely to find very few people here who agree with you.

.......2Channel, not very fair going after my post while ignoring what nataraj said but regardless your question is reasonable.

Their are a few reasons I have for my belief, but before I get to those let me first get at that last part of your question and say that it is the root of the problem. "what VC1 requires to produce great results" is highly dependent on what is being encoded, the encoder being used, and the amount of time allowed for the encoding. As such simply because it is possible to get one specific movie encoded at 10 Mbps using VC-1 with great results does not mean that it can be done with most movies. That is something that is rather important to understand when one talks about video codecs.

As for why I believe that most current VC-1 encodings on HD DVD are not at 10 to 12 Mbps it is because of a few reasons. The first is because I have heard many times Amir explain away VC-1 encodings with high bit rates by saying that the studios were simply filling up the disc. And from what Don Eklund said most early VC-1 encodings had an average bit rate of 20 Mbps, which even including for audio tracks means they were far higher than 12 Mbps in video bit rate. And from what I have seen of average bit rates from VC-1 encodings that have been posted on AVS Forum very few of them looked to have a video bit rate near 12 Mbps. Finally I have heard of few HD DVD titles even up until today that are known to have a video bit rate of less than 12 Mbps. For all the reasons listed above I would be absolutely amazed if even 20% of current HD DVD titles had an average video bit rate of 12 Mbps or less. Of course something important to note is that I do believe that both advanced video codecs will improve in efficiency with time.........

Sorry if I insulted you. I felt it was a little rich to lambast nataraj when you were stating your own speculations as fact in the same post. ;)

Normally I wouldn't have responded to your comments on the codecs, as I would have simply read it as your opinion.

The question you raise is one that I believe only insiders that have experience with both tools are able to authoratatively answer. And as you said, VC1 and AVC are still developing, where as Mpeg2 is no longer improving on a monthly basis.

Now that they are delivering equal picture quality to HD-DVD, Talk has decided that there's no more consumer benefit to the competition.Whatever benefits competition may still be providing are greatly overshadowed by the increased risk that neither format survives.

As for why I believe that most current VC-1 encodings on HD DVD are not at 10 to 12 Mbps it is because of a few reasons.

The first is because I have heard many times Amir explain away VC-1 encodings with high bit rates by saying that the studios were simply filling up the disc. If the space is there why not use it? Amir is very open that the first titles out like Serenity used much higher bit rates than titles need now as the encoding software has improved rapidly. One of the advantages of using a modern software based encoder with a modern video codec like VC-1.And from what Don Eklund said most early VC-1 encodings had an average bit rate of 20 Mbps, which even including for audio tracks means they were far higher than 12 Mbps in video bit rate. I trust Amir's' knowledge here more than Don's. But those were early titles, its not needed now.And from what I have seen of average bit rates from VC-1 encodings that have been posted on AVS Forum very few of them looked to have a video bit rate near 12 Mbps. Finally I have heard of few HD DVD titles even up until today that are known to have a video bit rate of less than 12 Mbps. Yep, but doesn't mean they need them. There may be valid points to see if there were compromises (lack of lossless audio, multiple lang tracks, lack of extras on neutral titles) but using up all the space is just a sign of good planning. Besides most of the newer HD DVD titles like Corpse Bride and King Kong consistently show lower bit rates as a trend.For all the reasons listed above I would be absolutely amazed if even 20% of current HD DVD titles had an average video bit rate of 12 Mbps or less. Maybe, now, but most new releases probably could if they have to. But with 30GB discs providing more than enough capacity for most titles, they just don't have to. Of course something important to note is that I do believe that both advanced video codecs will improve in efficiency with time. So do I.

Xbox add-on is just a HD DVD drive with some amount of flash memory, its price is not comparable to standalone players.

The price of Shinco's EVD player, which utilizes dirt cheap DVD drive, with no advanced interactivity, no persistent memory, no dual video decoder, no advanced audio decoder, no Ethernet connection, etc., etc., in China is 1,600 CNY ($206 USD). So, how much the price of "cheap Chinese HD DVD player" will be?

Right. What price? WHEN will they be out? Will they support HD sound output in 5.1 like the Toshibas? Will they support firmware updates (and actually get updates)? What will the price be of the cheapest Blu-ray player be when they finally make it to market?

Will it matter when the public sees that Cars, Pirates of the Caribbean etc. is are not available on HD DVD?

Steve, I didn't say that. I said most of the benefits of inter-format competition have been "used up". I further noted that, because the standards are set, there are limits to what further competition can do (i.e. new hardware features are probably unacceptable). I didn't say that once the standards were set competition no longer mattered; clearly the increased quality of Blu-ray releases demonstrates this.
At this point inter-format competition is far more damaging to the prospects for HD optical media than it is beneficial. Competition within a format helps the format (assuming the overall ecosystem remains healthy). Competition between formats during the time when both formats are struggling to survival hurts them both; were both of them clearly established it could be helpful (i.e. between PS2 and Xbox). But we're not there yet, nor is it likely we ever will be, as I simply don't think both formats can survive with sufficient profits for the ecosystem to keep them around.
Fine, others may benefit as well, but probably not the companies who are principals in the format battle. Whether it's their download service or someone else's, as long as Microsoft has 90+% of the PC OS market share they will benefit as well, probably moreso than the download provider given profit margins on Windows, Office, and the like.
Sorry, if you think failure of Blu-ray and HD DVD means HD is going away altogether you're likely to find very few people here who agree with you.

You know, maybe there's something to what you're saying Talk. Perhaps Sony should go ahead and throw in the towel.

But seriously, this whole HD market will go to universal players. Neither format is going to score a knockout punch on the other.

Will it matter when the public sees that Cars, Pirates of the Caribbean etc. is are not available on HD DVD?

Maybe, but at that point they will have bought the DVDs a be less attracted to the prospect of re-buying them again eight months later. They can just be comfortable in the knowledge that they and many other buyers will insure the HD-DVD availability shortly thereafter. :D

Whatever benefits competition may still be providing are greatly overshadowed by the increased risk that neither format survives.

Banana oil. Ya can believe that all you want, or at least say you believe it, but surely you know in the real world there is no way one format is just going to bow out for the sake of the other. Does anyone really expect that?

If the HD-DVD camp has it in mind to use an earlier sell-through price-point as their best hand, there is no way they would give up without playing it.

HD DVD is clearly going for a lower price point mass adoption catalog title strategy and Blu-ray is clearly going for a exclusive content greater hit title sales strategy lead by the PS3.

Why would key HD DVD backers even consider giving up before they start execution of that strategy with mass sales of HD A2s and lower priced players coming on the market this year?

HD DVD is clearly going for a lower price point mass adoption catalog title strategy and Blu-ray is clearly going for a exclusive content greater hit title sales strategy lead by the PS3.

Why would key HD DVD backers even consider giving up before they start execution of that strategy with mass sales of HD A2s and lower priced players coming on the market this year?

Because their strategy obviously did not work?

But Skogan, if your boss came and said to you Skogan I like you, I know I gave your increase last week, but I thought it over and I can pay you 50 cents more (hour, day, year, whatever your salary is based on) will you say no, diminishing returns, if it is not 10,100, 1000,10000 more I don't care? If your bank tells you we will increase your interest rate on your savings account by .1% do you say diminishing returns?

Diminishing returns is short for something needed to be sacrificed (and on limited media something always does) and we decided it will be this (in your example PQ)

The point of most "diminishing returns" examples is to illustrate that the amount of return diminishes past the point of providing value when weighed against the given expenditure to get it.

If adding additional bits that are not discernible by 99.99% of the viewers requires 100% of the viewers to pay 30% more for their playback deck, then there's questionable value. If it makes streaming more problematic, then there's questionable value. Rinse. Repeat.

If there's absolutely ZERO negative impact for including more bits, sure I'll take it. But we don't live in a vacuum, so that's not the case.

Because their strategy obviously did not work?

No because it even started yet.

Steve, I didn't say that. I said most of the benefits of inter-format competition have been "used up". I further noted that, because the standards are set, there are limits to what further competition can do (i.e. new hardware features are probably unacceptable). I didn't say that once the standards were set competition no longer mattered; clearly the increased quality of Blu-ray releases demonstrates this.

Well, rather than argue about what you did say, let just look at it from POST #4956 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9742881&&#post9742881):
But as I just posted these benefits are mostly "used up" given that both formats specifications are set. (emphasis mine)

So, while you do use the phrase "used up", you attribute that to the standards having been set as a result of the competition. Clearly you don't feel that much additional impact has happened since that time, as you state that the benefits was already "mostly used up" GIVEN that the standards had already (past tense) been set.

Now, in this post you admit that there has been "increased quality" since the standards freeze, but at THIS POINT you are calling for an end to the competition and for HD DVD to pack it in. Therefore I must conclude that you feel that competition or such things as:

- Codec choice
- PQ
- Interactivity
- Hardware pricing
- Pressure to include advanced hardware features (altho apparently still a WiP)
- etc...

have already advanced to the point of no real further value being realized. I think many, MANY would disagree with you.


At this point inter-format competition is far more damaging to the prospects for HD optical media than it is beneficial. Competition within a format helps the format (assuming the overall ecosystem remains healthy). Competition between formats during the time when both formats are struggling to survival hurts them both; were both of them clearly established it could be helpful (i.e. between PS2 and Xbox). But we're not there yet, nor is it likely we ever will be, as I simply don't think both formats can survive with sufficient profits for the ecosystem to keep them around.

That could very well be... provided that we are indeed past the point of competition providing positive pressure for advancement. I think it's pretty clear from the initial BR launch issues that that certainly was not the case then. And seeing that BR has reached parity on some points, but certainly not on others (hardware profiles anyone?), that it isn't the case now. Therefore it's rather dubious to assert that there's sufficient reason to proclaim victory and insist the other camp go home.

Fine, others may benefit as well, but probably not the companies who are principals in the format battle. Whether it's their download service or someone else's, as long as Microsoft has 90+% of the PC OS market share they will benefit as well, probably moreso than the download provider given profit margins on Windows, Office, and the like.
Sorry, if you think failure of Blu-ray and HD DVD means HD is going away altogether you're likely to find very few people here who agree with you.

Well, it's easy to simply dismiss the issue by saying "Fine" (maybe even with a sly Jedi wave-of-the-hand), but the reality is that Microsoft has never managed to be a big player in the content download arena. It's not like they've got this thing locked up. If anything Apple is a more likely benefactor if the HD optical discs die. Now if you want to say that MS is still going to gain by virtue of Apple's (or anybody else's) downloads being playable in Windows, and this driving sales, then go ahead and condemn iTunes as well...

But Skogan, if your boss came and said to you Skogan I like you, I know I gave your increase last week, but I thought it over and I can pay you 50 cents more (hour, day, year, whatever your salary is based on) will you say no, diminishing returns, if it is not 10,100, 1000,10000 more I don't care? If your bank tells you we will increase your interest rate on your savings account by .1% do you say diminishing returns?

Diminishing returns is short for something needed to be sacrificed (and on limited media something always does) and we decided it will be this (in your example PQ)


Imagine someone said to me, "I have a new device that will increase the PQ and AQ of your movies, let me show it to you." After putting the new device on my system, I couldn't discern any improvement in either the PQ or AQ. The new device either had no effect, or the effect it had was so trivial it was imperceivable.

How much do you think I would pay for such a device? Probably nothing, but maybe as much $5 or $10. I certainly wouldn't pay $100 for that device.

And so that is how much the imperceivable improvements that BD may provide are worth to me. Since a BD player cost more than $10 more than an HD DVD player, the trade off isn't worth it to me, at least not based on the technical merits of the two platforms. Beyond that, HD DVD has other benefits, but they are pretty modest themselves, and I probably wouldn't pay too much for those either.

Whatever benefits competition may still be providing are greatly overshadowed by the increased risk that neither format survives.

What convenient timing.

At what exact point did that risk overshadow any benefit? It wasn't the very first time BR discs had a better week than HD DVD discs by any chance, was it?

Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Whatever benefits competition may still be providing are greatly overshadowed by the increased risk that neither format survives.

There are some aspects of competition that won't exist when/if there is only 1 HD format left. For instance when Warner releases a disk on both formats and finds that one format is behind in interactivity development, or when a studio perhaps would want 50Gig of capacity for a project and can't get it on one format but can on the other. That would be the type of competition that wouldn't exist in a 1 format world since there is no other game in town to provide an alternative.

Certainly you can argue though that at some point the benefits could be overshadowed by the difficulties of trying to reach critical mass amidst that competition. BD has the PS3 trojan horse as it's plan to reach critical mass. HD appears to have in mind lower cost thresholds and perhaps piggy-backing HD content into standard dvd's.

It looks like all the critical mass strategies have their challenges ($$$).

What convenient timing.

At what exact point did that risk overshadow any benefit? It wasn't the very first time BR discs had a better week than HD DVD discs by any chance, was it?

You nailed that on the head. I'd go on to say and it's also before the sting of another significant drop in HD-DVD players prices.

Why do you think Sony is using this moment to bluff a victory?

They know if to many people have hungry HD-DVD players (bought only for playing movies), then broader studio neutrality is inevitable.

Because their strategy obviously did not work?

You can get an A2 HD-DVD player for about $380. Now that's attractive to me, but I'm used spending a whole lot more on this game than the average movie buyer who has seen brand-name DVD players at $75 for years.

Stand-alone players need to go below $300 before they show up on the radar, guess who's will be first?

Well as I posted in another thread I am supporting Blu-Ray because of its greater potential for stereoscopic dual stream left right frame sequential 3-D. Basicly twice the storage and throughput is needed although it might be possible to record one stream and generate the second stream from a parallax differential signal.

I read an article last year that said the PS3 was going to support sterescopic 3-D but I haven't heard much about this lately.

I believe stereoscopic 3-D will be the next big thing beyond 1080P. Read an article
at tvpredictions.com that said the NBA is going to experiment with 3-D at its Allstar game.

3-D has never become popular because film gives to many binoculiar assymetries along with other artifacts such as cross talk between left and right channels and improper use of the z axis. 3-D will be able to ride digital in the theater and in the home.

Imagine someone said to me, "I have a new device that will increase the PQ and AQ of your movies, let me show it to you." After putting the new device on my system, I couldn't discern any improvement in either the PQ or AQ. The new device either had no effect, or the effect it had was so trivial it was imperceivable.

How much do you think I would pay for such a device? Probably nothing, but maybe as much $5 or $10. I certainly wouldn't pay $100 for that device.

And so that is how much the imperceivable improvements that BD may provide are worth to me. Since a BD player cost more than $10 more than an HD DVD player, the trade off isn't worth it to me, at least not based on the technical merits of the two platforms. Beyond that, HD DVD has other benefits, but they are pretty modest themselves, and I probably wouldn't pay too much for those either.
Now imagine that you actually like to watch movies, but the discounted player won't play a great many of the movies available. For a whopping, extra hundred bucks the other player can play many more.

Sony has stated it would be 2 to 3 years before Blu-ray players reach the $299-399 price point.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789448&highlight=sony+2+to+3

Glasgow: If you go back to when DVDs came into play, it took about three years until they got into price points of $299 to $399. I suspect it's about the same thing here with Blu-ray. I think it's going to take up to three years to get down to those price points, possibly a little longer. But I would assume it's similar to DVD.

When I read Sony stating that, it made me mad as I purchased a Panasonic A-110 DVD player in September of 1998 for $349 which came with a free movie. The next year, my neighbor bought a Philips DVD player for less than that with three free movies. It did not take THREE YEARS for DVD...

~Alan

When I read Sony stating that, it made me mad as I purchased a Panasonic A-110 DVD player in September of 1998 for $349 which came with a free movie. The next year, my neighbor bought a Philips DVD player for less than that with three free movies. It did not take THREE YEARS for DVD...

~Alan
Your Panasonic was not one thousand dollars!

...
As for why I believe that most current VC-1 encodings on HD DVD are not at 10 to 12 Mbps it is because of a few reasons...

What's the point of a 10-12 Mbps video stream? Satellite can do 12-15 Mbps AVC now or soon? I don't see a lot of point in an HD disk format offering at so low BW. I'd go somewhere else if that was the case.

Your Panasonic was not one thousand dollars!

True!! However, it still doesn't make the following any less false:

If you go back to when DVDs came into play, it took about three years until they got into price points of $299 to $399.

Also, I can't speak for how high the Panasonic player was when it came out, but a lot of the players that were out during that time were in excess of $1000...

~Alan

Now imagine that you actually like to watch movies, but the discounted player won't play a great many of the movies available. For a whopping, extra hundred bucks the other player can play many more.

Now your one of the most rational BD supporters here, can you in all honesty say that more HD-DVD penetration will never result in more studio neutrality?

Also, say it takes eight or nine months for really inexpensive players to hit. Even with the current lull in HD-DVD releases, in nine months when you combine future and past releases, there will be plenty of product for a new owner to busy their wallet with.

I might ad that you never seem so anti-HD-DVD that I can't see you never going semi-neutral some day if the price was right, or am I crazy?

Now imagine that you actually like to watch movies, but the discounted player won't play a great many of the movies available.Not true, it will indeed play a great many of the movies available, since either format has approx. the same amount available.

For a whopping, extra hundred bucks the other player can play many more.The same can be said going either way. If you own only one, you are missing around half the content out there. So why pay the extra $100?

Now imagine that you actually like to watch movies, but the discounted player won't play a great many of the movies available. For a whopping, extra hundred bucks the other player can play many more.

While that may be a good point for some discussion, it wasn't related to the question Anthony asked and that I answered. His question was limited to why I didn't show greater enthusiasim for BD specs, and my answer was limited to that.

Obviously I hope that HD DVD wins the format war and there gets all the studio support. Alternatively, I hope it's a tie and HD DVD get's all the studio support along with PS3, err, I mean Blu-ray.

BTW right now, there are about as many movies that are unique to HD DVD as there are that are unique BD. Right now, you are not in a fundamentally better position content wise by owning BD instead of HD DVD. It's about the same. That may change in the future, but it may not, or it may only change for a little while, or it may change back in the other direction.

Now your one of the most rational BD supporters here, can you in all honesty say that more HD-DVD penetration will never result in more studio neutrality?

Also, say it takes eight or nine months for really inexpensive players to hit. Even with the current lull in HD-DVD releases, in nine months when you combine future and past releases, there will be plenty of product for a new owner to busy their wallet with.

I might ad that you never seem so anti-HD-DVD that I can't see you never going semi-neutral some day if the price was right, or am I crazy?
1. First, thanks for the compliment. No I cannot. The war is far from decided, AFAIC.

2. If Universal is sill not neutral by then, HD DVD will be able to play some more aces, yes.

3. No, you're not crazy. I'm mostly pro HD optical, but with a belief that one format would be better, now that most of the benefits of competition have been realized. I don't like to point it out too often as it touches some nerves, but since you asked I must remind you that only one studio on the HD DVD has to go neutral for this to be over for all intents and purposes.

Also you are responding to a response from me where I felt some clearing up was called for. Don't think that I have not and still don't think about HD DVD for myself. But my budget after a recent rash of toy spending is limited and the support of only one studio is not very comforting to me.

Now imagine that you actually like to watch movies, but the discounted player won't play a great many of the movies available. For a whopping, extra hundred bucks the other player can play many more. How many more titles are available of either format right now. About the same.

Plus every HD DVD player can upconvert the 10,000s of regular DVD out in the wild.

How many more titles are available of either format right now. About the same.

Plus every HD DVD player can upconvert the 10,000s of regular DVD out in the wild.
True and true, but my display does better than any upconverter. However this is important to a lot of people.

You do know, however that there are quite a few A titles coming exclusive to Blu-ray and not so many for HD DVD.

Gotta go. Meeting.

1.
2. If Universal is sill not neutral by then, HD DVD will be able to play some more aces, yes.
.

My guess is that there is a pretty open dialog between Universal and Toshiba, and that they also are gonna wait to see if lower-priced players make a difference.

They really have nothing to loose at this juncture in sticking to their guns since, player adoption rates for both formats are minimal now, and since they can make the $ on BD versions anytime they go neutral. After all, if they had put more titles out now, the sales figures would be more even, so they can't blame consumers for not buying what they're not yet offering.

I think they will go neutral, but not until it appears as if HD-DVD is secure or lost entirely. I'm sure HD-DVD wasn't an arbitrary choice they made just for $hits an giggles, they want to see it thrive.

My guess is that there is a pretty open dialog between Universal and Toshiba, and that they also are gonna wait to see if lower-priced players make a difference.

They really have nothing to loose at this juncture in sticking to their guns since, player adoption rates for both formats are minimal now, and since they can make the $ on BD versions anytime to go neutral. After all, if they had put more titles out now, the sales figures would be more even, so they can't blame consumers for not buying what they're not yet offering.

I think they will go neutral, but not until it appears as if HD-DVD is secure or lost entirely. I'm sure HD-DVD wasn't an arbitrary choice they made just for $hits an giggles, they want to see it thrive.
My meeting is running late so I thought I'd check back in.

All of this is logical. However, it would certainly be better if these Chinese players could hit the market sooner rather than later.

My meeting is running late so I thought I'd check back in.

All of this is logical. However, it would certainly be better if these Chinese players could hit the market sooner rather than later.

I know a lot of people also think that the new HD buyer is going to be steered to BD with the promise of greater studio support. However retailers can move a lot more players under $300 and below than ones for $400 and over, and they like a product they can sell. I would also assume that Toshiba will strike while the iron is hot and throw more coin at product displays and such.

Why are the two upcoming BD Disney releases of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films being released as 2 disc sets?
I would think that since BD holds more that they could just release them on single discs.

More TV shows on a disc? Maybe If MPEG2 and PCM isn't used.. :p
Studios want more discs so they can justify the higher price maybe?

Maybe PoTC is BD25 instead of BD50 ? Dunno ... didn't know it was 2 discs until you posted. Are you sure that's for the BR release and not the DVD?

Whatever benefits competition may still be providing are greatly overshadowed by the increased risk that neither format survives.

Sooo ... would you say ... "diminishing returns?" ;)

Sorry if I insulted you. I felt it was a little rich to lambast nataraj when you were stating your own speculations as fact in the same post..My statement was what I believed the evidence indicates so far and that is a lot different than stating that Blu-ray is incapable of making HD mainstream. A statement that in my opinion is over the top even in a discussion about the format war.


And as you said, VC1 and AVC are still developing, where as Mpeg2 is no longer improving on a monthly basis.True, and I have always believed that advanced video codecs are useful because of their greater efficiency. I just happen to also believe that a certain amount of exaggeration was done by those who promoted VC-1. Honestly I think that is understandable and what amazes me is that some people simply accepted that without evidence.


If the space is there why not use it?Because some of those titles could have had a lossless audio track if they did have a lower video bit rate and since if it made no difference at all why would a studio use more capacity than needed to encode a movie? Obviously there was some reason that it was done either in terms of picture quality or in terms of cost of encoding.


But with 30GB discs providing more than enough capacity for most titles, they just don't have to.Personally I would consider that an opinion since I don't think that has been proven.


Stand-alone players need to go below $300 before they show up on the radar, guess who's will be first?Probably Toshiba, but personally I don't think that is going to matter much unless they can get more studio and CE support.

Originally Posted by Timothy Ramzyk


Probably Toshiba, but personally I don't think that is going to matter much unless they can get more studio and CE support.


Personally, the suspense is killing me. That and the cold weather.

Seriously though, it tempts one to go about their business for chunks of time as this has become my proverbial "watched pot which never boils"

Diminishing returns is short for something needed to be sacrificed (and on limited media something always does) and we decided it will be this (in your example PQ)
Is a car with a top speed of 100 mph better than one of 60 mph? Yes.

Is a car with a top speed of 400 mph better than one of 200 mph? You'll never know :).

There are lots of areas of diminishing returns.

Is a car with a top speed of 100 mph better than one of 60 mph? Yes.

Is a car with a top speed of 400 mph better than one of 200 mph? You'll never know :).

There are lots of areas of diminishing returns.But of course the releases on the format Microsoft supports hit the maximum speed that HD DVD will allow them with the audio and other things on there, or close to it, on the majority of them. The above is a little bit like saying that the car that goes over 200mph isn't better, yet just about every time you get in the car you get it up to 200mph at some point. If VC-1 encodes didn't keep hitting the governor that keeps the speed from going any higher on HD DVD so often, your analogy would work a lot better. :)

--Darin

Is a car with a top speed of 100 mph better than one of 60 mph? Yes.

Is a car with a top speed of 400 mph better than one of 200 mph? You'll never know :).



only due to lame speed limit laws put on us by 'the man'. otherwise we could get around much faster. are there bandwidth limit laws in effect that i haven't heard of?

But of course the format Microsoft supports hits the maximum speed that HD DVD can do, or close to it, on the vast majority of releases. The above is a little bit like saying that the car that goes over 200mph isn't better, yet just about every time you get in the car you get it up to 200mph at some point. If VC-1 encodes didn't keep hitting the governor that keeps the speed from going any higher on HD DVD so often, your analogy would work a lot better. :)

--Darin

I like my analogy (the old hood ornament one) better. There are a lot of places to improve the quality of picture. Adding bitrates, even when it does make a difference, it's only makes a very small difference. I don't believe that issue rates the attention that it's been getting. It's like bragging about not having a hood ornament.

I watched Crash the other day, it had excellent picture quality. I watched it on HD PPV. Probably most people would agree that picture looked a lot better off Dish than TFE did on BD, independent of bit rate. That's what I'm talking about.

Better analogy would be, which car goes 200 miles on a tank of gas and which goes 400 miles on a tank of gas.

I like my analogy (the old hood ornament one) better.I know you like it. I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand, a hood ornament isn't the kind of thing that would keep somebody from getting some other feature for a car they wanted to buy, just because the hood ornament would slow them down too much. Here we have a case where studios aren't putting 24/48 (or even 20/48) lossless audio on discs and the reason looks like it is mostly because they don't want to take away from the video. They are smart enough to know that lossless sells some discs. If the engine isn't powerful enough to support putting skis on top of the car because of a big hood ornament, then that isn't a good thing. :) Okay, I know that no analogy is perfect and I just butchered yours.

--Darin

Better analogy would be, which car goes 200 miles on a tank of gas and which goes 400 miles on a tank of gas.If you believe that space is the main problem. Many of us don't. You can always add a 2nd disc, just like you can stop for gas. The bandwidth looks like it has been the bigger limiting factor for HD DVD and that is more like a top speed than the distance a car can go on a tank of gas.

If lossless audio is like putting skis on top of the car, then HD DVD has been very careful not to put skis that are too big on there and doesn't even included skis most of the time.

--Darin

Guys, keep talking about cars. Analogy or no analogy, I like cars. Besides, talks about cars are more interesting than the format battle. :)

Is BMW M5 better than BMW 545?

Guys, keep talking about cars. Analogy or no analogy, I like cars. Besides, talks about cars are more interesting than the format battle. :)

Is BMW M5 better than BMW 545?


I'm starting to feel that way and I don't care about cars.

Can you imagine the 19 year-old, Best Buy sales clerk describing the fine-points of lossless audio to a guy that has always just used his TVs speakers anyway? I give that customer twelve seconds before "The Farmer In The Dell" takes over his attention-span.

I've blotted my copy book recently, but I've done it before, and I'll do it again, :o :( so here goes :)

I don't like to point it out too often as it touches some nerves, but since you asked I must remind you that only one studio on the HD DVD has to go neutral for this to be over for all intents and purposes.
If one of the exclusive BD studios goes neutral the slippery slope is in the other direction.

No forget second discs.

Or even flipping discs in the middle of a movie.

Remember those expensive LD players which had a motorized mechanism to move the laser pick-up to the reverse side?

No forget second discs.

Or even flipping discs in the middle of a movie.

Remember those expensive LD players which had a motorized mechanism to move the laser pick-up to the reverse side?

Speaking as a prior laser owner, it's not the same thing. I'm sure no movie will get spread over two disks.

I wouldn't mind a second disk for extras because then I completely ignore all the time-wasting crap I've managed to ignore on my DVDs for ten years.

Well what really shocks me is with HDi and the little pictures and text telling me how much time the extras will take, I actually find myself watching them with HD DVD a lot more often than I ever did with a regular DVD.

Sometimes the making of a costume or set design extra bonus feature seam sa little bit more interesting if you know it will only be 5:08 instead of "when will it freaken ever end" I find myself watching them as others in the clan are gathering for the main event showing.

I just find my self watching them a lot more, the menu system just seems to be just that much more user friendly that it seems to really be a bonus instead of a PITA chore.

The A2 can be found with very little effort for < $400. Good luck finding a 20gb PS3 for less than $500...... so MSRP pricing is irrelevant to the discussion, except with regard to the PS3.

RTO: MRSP is always relevant

1) fire sales just exist for crap and excess inventory
2) forum rules state that nothing but MRSP is allowed to be discussed
3) not all of us are fleabay buyers.

but they needed to make a 300$ down payement on a 360

Concept for sunk costs. very important. I paid $400 for 360 quite a few months back and my credit card is paid (If I were the carry the balance type, this would be important). So, $199, looks small.

I agree Anthony, however we're still looking to see that there is any actual improvement.

So if my boss said "good news you got a raise!" but my paycheck didn't change, I'd feel that he was being less than honest with me.

2ch: diminishing returnes by definition means that there is a benefit. The point of diminishing returnes is the point where the cost outways the benefit. The example often given tend to be agricultural, if you plant X you get Y, you plant X more you get Y more, at some point if you plant X more there will be too many plants and instead of Y more you will get 1/2Y more. No one has ever said the picture could not look better (or the audio sound better) the idea is that if they wanted it to be better some other sacrifice would need to be given.

For a studio that could be , drop a feature they want (like IME on KK instead of lossless), it could be paying the tech more to encode and taking more time to tweak it (because there is not enough BW/space and so he needs to tweak more), it could be going to two disks……
But as customers (if you want the best A/V) these are not factors.

If we go back to the farming, lets say if the farmer plants 1 bag of grain he gets 10 bags back, he plants 2 gets 20, 3 gets 30, 4 gets 37, 5 gets 40, 6 gets 42(his land is not growing, he needs more work and the length of the day is fixed) . He starts getting diminishing returns if he plants more then 4 and is relatively useless at 6 (that one extra bag he purchased brought him one extra bag at the end of the season). If he needs to keep some grain for next year and his family needs 35 bags (pre tax) at least to survive even though there is diminishing returns past 3 he needs to go to 5. Now if you are the king and this is your peasant you don’t care about the extra work he need to put in and look at the taxes you will get (1 out of every 7) you go diminishing returns for the plot start past 3, for the farmer there is no benefits past 5 (40= 5*7+5, so 5 for taxes, 5 for next year and 30 for himself) but for the king there is a benefit to go to 6 (42=6*7 so 6 for taxes, 6 for next year and 30 for the family)

That is what is happening here, we could get better but some people are sayoing we don’t need it because of artificial limits.

The point of most "diminishing returns" examples is to illustrate that the amount of return diminishes past the point of providing value when weighed against the given expenditure to get it.


yes I know what DR means.

If adding additional bits that are not discernible by 99.99% of the viewers requires 100% of the viewers to pay 30% more for their playback deck, then there's questionable value.
can you show me where this is a fact, (PS you need to prove the 30% more, and I will just tell you this much, when I bought my PS3 it was cheaper then the HD DVD players because Sony used a better exchange rate then Toshiba (OK, in reality Toshiba is using the rest of the world to sub US sales, I was just trying to be nice)

On the other hand can you tell me why I should care?

If it makes streaming more problematic, then there's questionable value.
why? this is a disk based media, if that was the point and what you want then the over compressed P2P is your answer. Free movies and they stream much better.

If there's absolutely ZERO negative impact for including more bits, sure I'll take it. But we don't live in a vacuum, so that's not the case.
we don't live in a vacuum, but it is the case.

While that may be a good point for some discussion, it wasn't related to the question Anthony asked and that I answered. His question was limited to why I didn't show greater enthusiasim for BD specs, and my answer was limited to that.


Skogan, I never brought up BD in that post, you said at some ppoint PQ and AQ can be sacrificed because it is not much better (PODR) and I was pointing out that as a consumer there is no such thing. PODR is only relevent to the studio.

Speaking as a prior laser owner, it's not the same thing. I'm sure no movie will get spread over two disks.

I wouldn't mind a second disk for extras because then I completely ignore all the time-wasting crap I've managed to ignore on my DVDs for ten years.

but that is the issue, its a brave new world, extras are not stuff tacked on at the end. How would you put (the PiP) on a second disk? You don't have BD (and I don't have HD DVD) but some BD disks use dynamic branching so that you can customize the viewing experience. Instead of cut scenes at the end of the movie you can decide to include them in the appropriate place, the same with some other extras.

Just because that concept was practical with DVD does not mean it will work well going forward.

Concept for sunk costs. very important. I paid $400 for 360 quite a few months back and my credit card is paid (If I were the carry the balance type, this would be important). So, $199, looks small.

does that mean everything is free? I paid my CC for my Samsung player many months ago as well. :)

Just because 360 owners delude themselves does not mean that the rest of the world should. I don't have a 360, if I want an HD DVD player I would need to buy one because the drive by itself won't work.

RTO: MRSP is always relevant

1) fire sales just exist for crap and excess inventory

Sony just had a fire sale for your vaunted PS3 in Japan.

2) forum rules state that nothing but MRSP is allowed to be discussed

Oh, please.

3) not all of us are fleabay buyers.

Try Froogle

That sunk costs are not important in purchase decisions is not a question of delusional thinking. Its a well known concept in the understanding of consumer purchasing behaviors.

People don't act rationally in their purchases decisions. Even though it might make sense from a theoretical standpoint on the value of their purchases, consumers just don't consider sunk costs when making a purchase.

Someone buying an HD DVD add on for the Xbox 360 is just considering the $199 or less price tag when he is considering the purchase.

Few people who want a HD DVD player would even consider buying a Xbox 360 and a HD DVD drive now. They'll just buy a standalone one. The only reason they might in the future is if they were already interested in the Xbox 360 anyway.

but that is the issue, its a brave new world, extras are not stuff tacked on at the end. How would you put (the PiP) on a second disk? You don't have BD (and I don't have HD DVD) but some BD disks use dynamic branching so that you can customize the viewing experience. Instead of cut scenes at the end of the movie you can decide to include them in the appropriate place, the same with some other extras.

Just because that concept was practical with DVD does not mean it will work well going forward.

I have thousands of movies, half of them unwatched. I don't find the behind-the-scenes aspect of a films production all that unique from film to film. I also have no real need to play Jr. director. I'd rather see more of what I own than futz with that crap. That's just who I am.

Since you don't buy HD-DVD I guess you wont have to worry about how a three-hour movie with two hours of extras will be handled.

If they put extra material on a second disk, an no one buys it, that will send the message. If it has no effect and is bought anyway, then we will know it made little difference.

2ch: diminishing returnes by definition means that there is a benefit. The point of diminishing returnes is the point where the cost outways the benefit. The example often given tend to be agricultural, if you plant X you get Y, you plant X more you get Y more, at some point if you plant X more there will be too many plants and instead of Y more you will get 1/2Y more. No one has ever said the picture could not look better (or the audio sound better) the idea is that if they wanted it to be better some other sacrifice would need to be given.

For a studio that could be , drop a feature they want (like IME on KK instead of lossless), it could be paying the tech more to encode and taking more time to tweak it (because there is not enough BW/space and so he needs to tweak more), it could be going to two disks……
But as customers (if you want the best A/V) these are not factors.

If we go back to the farming, lets say if the farmer plants 1 bag of grain he gets 10 bags back, he plants 2 gets 20, 3 gets 30, 4 gets 37, 5 gets 40, 6 gets 42(his land is not growing, he needs more work and the length of the day is fixed) . He starts getting diminishing returns if he plants more then 4 and is relatively useless at 6 (that one extra bag he purchased brought him one extra bag at the end of the season). If he needs to keep some grain for next year and his family needs 35 bags (pre tax) at least to survive even though there is diminishing returns past 3 he needs to go to 5. Now if you are the king and this is your peasant you don’t care about the extra work he need to put in and look at the taxes you will get (1 out of every 7) you go diminishing returns for the plot start past 3, for the farmer there is no benefits past 5 (40= 5*7+5, so 5 for taxes, 5 for next year and 30 for himself) but for the king there is a benefit to go to 6 (42=6*7 so 6 for taxes, 6 for next year and 30 for the family)

That is what is happening here, we could get better but some people are sayoing we don’t need it because of artificial limits.

I understand the point your making, but real life results are what matter. I assume you saw my recent post taking a closer look at BD-50s.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9748905#post9748905

Blu-Ray strikes me as being a less mature format than HD-DVD at this point. The marketing message is all about BD-50 and what it will deliver in the future. The reality is that only 1 in 5 titles is a BD-50. When you take a closer look at those BD-50s you find no delivered advantage for the extra expense required for BD players.

Looking at the last two BD-50 reviews on highdefdigest provides more food for thought. Keep in mind that both of these movies were released in 2006, so we're not talking about compromised source material.

The Sentinel 2.5/5
BD exclusive
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/sentinel2006.html

The Departed 4.5/5
BD-50 using the same VC1 encode as HD-DVD
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/departed.html
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/departed.html

yes I know what DR means.

If adding additional bits that are not discernible by 99.99% of the viewers requires 100% of the viewers to pay 30% more for their playback deck, then there's questionable value.

can you show me where this is a fact, (PS you need to prove the 30% more, and I will just tell you this much, when I bought my PS3 it was cheaper then the HD DVD players because Sony used a better exchange rate then Toshiba (OK, in reality Toshiba is using the rest of the world to sub US sales, I was just trying to be nice)


I wasn't quoting it as fact (hence the "if"). The argument many are making here is that the PQ and AQ thus far on BD are not heads & shoulders above HD DVD. Therefore the "60% more" storage space argument for BD starts to fall in to the realm of diminishing returns for throwing more bits at the encodes for most features.

On the other hand can you tell me why I should care?

I'm not telling you you should. I'm telling you why many others do.



If it makes streaming more problematic, then there's questionable value.

why? this is a disk based media, if that was the point and what you want then the over compressed P2P is your answer. Free movies and they stream much better.

Do you really believe there's no applicability, or are you just being argumentative? Maybe this is one of the "why should I care" points for you, which is fine. But one need only to look at the HTPC section of the forum, or recognize that such things are considered important enough to hold up AACS finalization over, etc...

So again, for many, it's a cost that weighs on one side of the "diminishing returns" argument.




If there's absolutely ZERO negative impact for including more bits, sure I'll take it. But we don't live in a vacuum, so that's not the case.


we don't live in a vacuum, but it is the case.

Really? You don't believe there's single negative associated with larger encode sizes/bitrates as many are suggesting BR makes possible, and therefore should be used?

but that is the issue, its a brave new world, extras are not stuff tacked on at the end. How would you put (the PiP) on a second disk? You don't have BD (and I don't have HD DVD) but some BD disks use dynamic branching so that you can customize the viewing experience. Instead of cut scenes at the end of the movie you can decide to include them in the appropriate place, the same with some other extras.

Just because that concept was practical with DVD does not mean it will work well going forward.

If a feature was exceptionally long or required lots of extra space, and therefore was split across 2 discs, why can't the first half of the movie, along with PiP/seamless branches/IME for the first half of the movie on one disc, and the second half of the movie along with it's associated extra content on the second?

If a feature was exceptionally long or required lots of extra space, and therefore was split across 2 discs, why can't the first half of the movie, along with PiP/seamless branches/IME for the first half of the movie on one disc, and the second half of the movie along with it's associated extra content on the second?


King Kong is over three hours long and on one disk, I doubt you will ever see an actual single movie split over more than one disk. I'll eat those words if it happens, but until then I wouldn't even factor it in.

King Kong is over three hours long and on one disk, I doubt you will ever see an actual single movie split over more than one disk. I'll eat those words if it happens, but until then I wouldn't even factor it in.

Reds is already out and the feature is spread over two discs.

Reds is already out and the feature is spread over two discs.Was not that a deliberate Warren Beatty decision to preserve the original movie's intermission? As was previously discussed the movie would have fit on a HD30 or BD50, but two discs were used for both BD and HD DVD. In this case it was not a size issue.

Edit: BTW I did watch the full movie on HD DVD. It did take a couple of sessions though. The intermission is at a natural break in the story.

If a feature was exceptionally long or required lots of extra space, and therefore was split across 2 discs, why can't the first half of the movie, along with PiP/seamless branches/IME for the first half of the movie on one disc, and the second half of the movie along with it's associated extra content on the second?
You could, but wouldn't it be "better" and more convenient to have it on one disc?

Reds is already out and the feature is spread over two discs.
I didn't think anyone watched it long enough to find out.

does that mean everything is free? I paid my CC for my Samsung player many months ago as well. :)

Just because 360 owners delude themselves does not mean that the rest of the world should. I don't have a 360, if I want an HD DVD player I would need to buy one because the drive by itself won't work.
Sony says that BD is free when you buy a PS3 :)

King Kong is over three hours long and on one disk, I doubt you will ever see an actual single movie split over more than one disk. I'll eat those words if it happens, but until then I wouldn't even factor it in.

Right. Hence my "exceptionally long" qualifier.

There will always be corner cases where you need more than 30GB. Or 50. Or XX.

But it appears that they would be the minority, even for 30GB, so I think its a non-factor.

I made the comment I did in response to the poster's assertion that if you wanted to use IME, then 2 discs wouldn't work. I don't see why that's the case.

You could, but wouldn't it be "better" and more convenient to have it on one disc?

I suppose, but I think we are talking fractions of the overall # of releases. There are alread multi-disc volumes of both flavors, so there will always be exceptions. If they are >5%, I doubt it's gonna be a significant factor.

Heck, KK is on one disc, and in every viewing at our place so far, we had an intermission for food/drink/potty anyway...

Blu-Ray strikes me as being a less mature format than HD-DVD at this point. The marketing message is all about BD-50 and what it will deliver in the future. The reality is that only 1 in 5 titles is a BD-50. When you take a closer look at those BD-50s you find no delivered advantage for the extra expense required for BD players.

I agree with part of what you are saying. HD DVD have come across as a more consistent format, with less "blunders" from either poor compression or weak masters. HDi obviously is easier to get going with than BD-J, thus resulting in more polished looking titles. VC-1 is an excellent codec, and with great support from Microsoft (at least in the beginning) and carefully selected titles, the first slate was fantastic. Ie., by far the better launch of the two formats.

On the other hand, the BD side seems less consistent. As mentioned, blunders in compression and weak masters, little use of BD-J, overly confident people in the press from various companies etc. And as you mention, touting 50GB as a great advantage while at the same time not showing that in the actual content, ie. little or no extras, but instead using the space on inefficient encodings or even more than one complete version of the movie (that is creative, though, while waiting for tools to mature or even become available).

But again, we're still just over 6 months into the existence of a brand new format. Sure, I wish that things were a bit more finished from the get go, but I must say, I am not worried. All I know is that we have 50GB and 48Mb/s to play with. OK, so the true potential of that has not been shown yet, but I am quite certain that it will in the future. (There he goes with the "future" again... ;))

Whereas on the HD DVD side, the 30GB and 36Mb/s has already been hit, and the future consists more on improving encoder efficiency to overcome it. Anyone understand what I am saying? To just dismiss it with, "It is enough!" is a bit simple in my view.

Why, in the less than a year old HD DVD has there already been TWO "proposals" on extending the format? First one on size, then one on size and throughput? Surely it can not only be for fun or "just in case someone should ask for it"?

That sunk costs are not important in purchase decisions is not a question of delusional thinking. Its a well known concept in the understanding of consumer purchasing behaviors.

People don't act rationally in their purchases decisions. Even though it might make sense from a theoretical standpoint on the value of their purchases, consumers just don't consider sunk costs when making a purchase.

Someone buying an HD DVD add on for the Xbox 360 is just considering the $199 or less price tag when he is considering the purchase.



I'd argue that in many cases they are thinking quite rationally. Most 360 owners bought it as a gaming console and/or for it other media functions like network streaming, hd downloads etc.

Unless they bought the 360 primarily as an hd-dvd player then it's only logical to consider that cost on it's own if desired. Otherwise, when they buy a standalone hd-dvd player do they consider the fact that they don't get a media extender, hd movie downloader and hd video game player in the cost?

Whereas on the HD DVD side, the 30GB and 36Mb/s has already been hit, and the future consists more on improving encoder efficiency to overcome it. Anyone understand what I am saying? To just dismiss it with, "It is enough!" is a bit simple in my view.

Why, in the less than a year old HD DVD has there already been TWO "proposals" on extending the format? First one on size, then one on size and throughput? Surely it can not only be for fun or "just in case someone should ask for it"?

I understand, but improving encoder efficiency will continue to boost the format. Look how nasty the first five years of DVD masters look.

Increased space on HD-DVD was a notion that has been in the works for quite some time, and I wonder if it may actually be 90% so that BD can't say "we got 50 you got 30" regardless of how often it's implemented.

If it does pass approval, then I hope a lot of people shad-ap about GB, or will the BD 200 be the next must for a movie that only needed 30 with extras?

Whereas on the HD DVD side, the 30GB and 36Mb/s has already been hit, and the future consists more on improving encoder efficiency to overcome it. Anyone understand what I am saying? To just dismiss it with, "It is enough!" is a bit simple in my view.
To me, the advantage would be shown through better PQ. BD hasn't shown any advantage, and I kind of doubt it will, after all, the compressionists on both sides are supposedly achieving transparency to the master. BD will improve their eyesight?

Heh, now this is interesting...

http://www.geardigest.com/2007/02/14/eu_bans_dodgy_consumer_reviews/

Heh, now this is interesting...

http://www.geardigest.com/2007/02/14/eu_bans_dodgy_consumer_reviews/
Interesting.. that could have huge ramifications across the board.