From page 3 of this (http://arstechnica.com/articles/headstart.ars/1) ArsTechnica interview with Aaron Greenberg, Group Marketing Manager for Xbox Live, and Scott Henson, product unit manager for Microsoft's game technology group:

Read it again - his point is Sony is making their customers pay $200 for the next Betamax.

...irregularly shaped overlay video...The luma key capability of PIP can handle that just fine -- you should see our demo at CES for an example of it's capabilities. :) But one point you missed is the ability to better blend the two video sources together instead of just doing a hard switch, which could result in exceeding the bandwidth limit on analog video signals.

Using seamless branching might not be as bad, but there can be bandwidth ceiling issues there.Now you piqued my curiousity...why could it be any worse than if no PIP was pre-rendered?

As Keith said, what's the difference how it's implemented if the end-user experience is the same? In essence they included two copies of the movie, one with and one without PiP. 50GB of storage allows the studios flexibility such as this. A short-sighted comment might say "this is useless, HD-DVD mandates PiP support", to which one possible response would be "using this technique could allow for far greater flexibility, such as multiple PiP windows, irregularly shaped overlay video, audio commentary provided via the primary audio stream (and hence available even if decoding is taking place in the receiver, not the player), etc.".

- Talk

it is going to be a while before i can pick my jaw up off the floor...

i am in utter disbelief of how you report they achieved pip and am doubly in utter disbelief that you would sit here andefend that and try to spin it as something good!

setting aside all the obvious, the movie has to get encoded twice?!? doubling the time, resources, etc?

and this is done simply to have some sort of answer to the fact that hd dvd already does it in a masterful way...

funny how it seems the bd group is in a constant state of catchup, me too, knee-jerk reactions, etc. this forum appears to be affecting much of what is going on out there behind closed doors, moreso than i ever would have thought...

5 4 3 2 1 ...

(EDIT: this should have even b2b shouting kludge/cluster-f@#k ...)

In essence they included two copies of the movie, one with and one without PiP. 50GB of storage allows the studios flexibility such as this. A short-sighted comment might say "this is useless, HD-DVD mandates PiP support", to which one possible response would be "using this technique could allow for far greater flexibility

Another BD advantage. Fake PiP!!! :rolleyes:

Now you peaked my curiousity...why could it be any worse than if no PIP was pre-rendered?Just that if the branch has to be there because there is a PiP path, then it was the lack of a second video decoder that caused the branch to be needed. Therefore, it was the cause of having a more limited bandwidth ceiling at that point. My understanding is that both formats limit their bandwidth to an average of around 60% of the normal peak just before a branch point (and 2 points are needed for each alternative branch because of going there and coming back). If Blu-ray's implementation of seamless branching is different, then I would be interested in hearing about it. Anyway, since audio pretty much takes what it takes that can really limit the video there. I believe this is one reason we've seen DTS left off the branched version of LOTR on DVD where it was on the extended versions without branching. Basically, Blu-ray has both bandwidth and space advantages, but if they are used for something that the other format doesn't need to do to get the same performance, then it really isn't much of an advantage to us and the total might be a disadvantage.

Also, I think the PiP on at least some HD DVDs can be taken up and down easily by the user at pretty much any point.

I would be pretty concerned if this were the long term solution for PiP on Blu-ray.

--Darin

As Keith said, what's the difference how it's implemented if the end-user experience is the same? In essence they included two copies of the movie, one with and one without PiP. 50GB of storage allows the studios flexibility such as this.
- Talk

But having to encode the movie twice means that most, if not all, of the extra storage offered by the dual BD would be eaten up by the second "PiP" movie encode.

In other words, it takes BD more space to have the same functionality as HD DVD.

If that's the case, what functional advantage does a BD 50 offer over a HD 30?

setting aside all the obvious, the movie has to get encoded twice?!? doubling the time, resources, etc?

and this is done simply to have some sort of answer to the fact that hd dvd already does it in a masterful way...

funny how it seems the bd group is in a constant state of catchup, me too, knee-jerk reactions, etc. this forum appears to be affecting much of what is going on out there behind closed doors, moreso than i ever would have thought...

(EDIT: this should have even b2b shouting kludge/cluster-f@#k ...)

WOW, If this is indeed correct, the advantages to additional disc capacity and cost parity just went out the proverbial window.

As Keith said, what's the difference how it's implemented if the end-user experience is the same? In essence they included two copies of the movie, one with and one without PiP. 50GB of storage allows the studios flexibility such as this. A short-sighted comment might say "this is useless, HD-DVD mandates PiP support", to which one possible response would be "using this technique could allow for far greater flexibility, such as multiple PiP windows, irregularly shaped overlay video, audio commentary provided via the primary audio stream (and hence available even if decoding is taking place in the receiver, not the player), etc.".

Wow, that's an impressive spin :).

A real PIP like HD DVD can do a lot of stuff that a baked-in "fake" PIP can do.

First, it doesn't require doubling the data rate!
It can provide smooth on/off
It can provide user-controllable positioning and title based interactive scripting
And as kjack said, you can do irregular shapes no problem with luma keys.

As for having audio and main audio mixed as a primary is a bug, not a feature! It post you in the position of having to do real-time switching between the audio streams without gaps. And since it's a whole other encode, if you don't want the audio quality to change, you'll have to use the same number of channels as the main audio. This approach would pretty much just replicate all the problems with secondary audio that DVD had.

What the Descent had to go through is a great real-world example of HD DVD's big practical advantages for interactivity today.

Read it again - his point is Sony is making their customers pay $200 for the next Betamax.Believe me, I read it several times. One could interpret it as you suggest, but a literal reading suggests otherwise:

I asked if we would ever see a 360 with an HD DVD drive built-in. Another firm "no." No hesitation.

"We don't want to charge customers $200 extra for something that may be the next Betamax," Henson told meUnless he was taken out of context, Henson is clearly referring to including an HD DVD drive in a 360. Which is currently, surprise, a $199 option. So a literal reading would be "We don't want to charge customers $200 extra [for an HD DVD drive] that may be the next Betamax".

I suspect an edit, retraction or clarification will shortly appear on the original ArsTechnica article. :p

Talkstr8t,

I want to make sure I'm clear. This dual encoding to get PiP isn't the long term strategy for Blu-ray, is it?

--Darin

Talkstr8t,

I want to make sure I'm clear. This dual encoding to get PiP isn't the long term strategy for Blu-ray, is it?

--Darin
define "long term".

:D

i am in utter disbelief of how you report they achieved pip and am doubly in utter disbelief that you would sit here andefend that and try to spin it as something good!

setting aside all the obvious, the movie has to get encoded twice?!? doubling the time, resources, etc?

But having to encode the movie twice means that most, if not all, of the extra storage offered by the dual BD would be eaten up by the second "PiP" movie encode.

In other words, it takes BD more space to have the same functionality as HD DVD.

You would both be correct in your apoplectic responses if this were the only mechanism for Blu-ray to offer PiP. It isn't. All players released after June 07 (and, I predict, the vast majority of players released before then), support secondary video which, as I understand it, is slightly more flexible than that provided for in the HD-DVD specification. Lionsgate decided to leverage the extra capacity of BD50 to build a PiP experience which doesn't require secondary video support. Why is this a bad thing? I suspect they could largely use the initial encode for the PiP encode (compressionists, feel free to jump in here), so this would require way less than double the effort, and as Keith and I have posted, there are other potential benefits. The Descent has been lauded as having exemplary AQ and PQ, so clearly the final product didn't suffer as a result.

I'm not even beginning to suggest this is the preferred way nor will become the default way to do PiP. As Ben suggests, there are clearly many advantages to using a secondary video decoder. Nonetheless, this demonstrates very creative leveraging of Blu-ray strengths by The Descent creative team, and such outside-the-box thinking may well lead to other content which simply can't be done any other way.

What do you mean by this? Cjplay works for the wholly owned subsidiary of Warner producing HD DVDs/BDs.I see, and that actually makes things a bit clearer in terms of recent events. Considering how Warner is trying to remain neutral in this format war they probably didn't want any of their employers getting involved in it.


I agree that not considering a format because of the possible unprofessional or vindictive behavior of any single individual or small group of individual is harsh. But I dare say, it doesn't help.Certainly, but in my opinion there are people on both sides of this format war who do more harm to their format than benefit.


Grubert just broke the news on the news thread that a second xbox 360 is a coming and it has hdmi...If true this is great news, personally I was hoping that a HDMI version of the Xbox 360 would eventually be released. All I hope now is that Microsoft was being honest about giving consumers a choice by not forcing those that want a HDMI version of the Xbox 360 to buy a HD DVD drive as well.


Oh boy ... I hope this is fake ... :(

After 10 million in circulation, they're going to add a new SKU? Unless it comes with a price drop of the originals, that doesn't make a lot of sense. :(It makes perfect sense to me. After all we are not just talking about digital video but also multi-channel PCM audio as well. Also if the rumor is true it will also have a new 65 nm CPU, which will produce less heat, and a 120 GB hard drive.


1) Because it's realatively disingenuous to call it PiP when it ain't, if for nothing else other than for the audience here, who have listened to the virtues of BD-J being extolled.Considering all the times I have asked why no HD DVD supporter ever jumps on rdjam for when he says something wrong about Blu-ray I guess it is only fair that I should join in here and say that I agree that Talkstr8t was wrong for saying that the The Descent can do PiP. Everything I have read indicates that The Descent uses two separate video encodings which is something that has even been done with DVD.


Talkstr8t,

I want to make sure I'm clear. This dual encoding to get PiP isn't the long term strategy for Blu-ray, is it?Come on Darin logically speaking the BDA wouldn't be requiring PiP decoding for all Blu-ray players after this June unless they were planning to have discs that use them. Also based on a few insider posts and an interesting debate between Amir and Talkstr8t that happened a few months ago it sounds like the secondary video decoder for Blu-ray may even be capable of HD resolutions. Personally speaking I believe that PiP video could become a mass market feature in the future.

One more. Are people sure that "The Descent" has PiP. I've watched it and looked at the extras and don't remember any PiP. I did turn on an audio commentary at one point. I just looked at the back of the case and don't see any mention of this kind of thing. Maybe it is a different title that people are thinking of or maybe I'm missing something here.

--Darin

As Keith said, what's the difference how it's implemented if the end-user experience is the same? In essence they included two copies of the movie, one with and one without PiP. 50GB of storage allows the studios flexibility such as this. A short-sighted comment might say "this is useless, HD-DVD mandates PiP support", to which one possible response would be "using this technique could allow for far greater flexibility, such as multiple PiP windows, irregularly shaped overlay video, audio commentary provided via the primary audio stream (and hence available even if decoding is taking place in the receiver, not the player), etc.".

Utterly unbeleivable - doesn't express my reaction.

Lets see. What should we do with our "extra" storage - on which the whole "technical superiority" of BD is based ?

- MPEG2 !
- PCM !!
and now
- Two Versions of the same movie !!!

If this is spun as +ve ... Karl Rove can learn a few things from your straight talk :mad:

All this spin about PiP is unbelievable! It is not PiP in the context we talk about PiP on this forum. Period. Any spin is not going to help. Frankly, I really thought that this was going to be a real test of PiP capability (as in secondary stream decoding) on my PS3. I guess I will have to wait until June now to find out.

As for the PiP controversy, I would like to add my thoughts:

"meh"

Thank you.

The best part is that the average consumer is going to look at 'The Descent', watch it, see "Picture in Picture", and be even further confused by the supposed differences between formats.

Jack: "Yes, but HD-DVD supports PiP on all titles, whereas Blu-Ray wont be able to offer that unless you purchase a player after June 2007".
Bill: "Huh? You are full of garbage. I was watching The Descent and it had PiP".
Jack: "But ... but ... "

:(

What exactly is in the PIP, a talking head in a stamp-sized window?

That is such a big deal to people?

What exactly is in the PIP, a talking head in a stamp-sized window?

That is such a big deal to people?
It is not stamp size. It is a full SD picture. Did you think DVD was stamp size?

And it is a big deal in many dimensions. The biggest one is that someone is selling a luxury car and instead of giving you a/c, is giving you a battery operated portable fan, and says, "hey, this cools you too. Please use this until the next year's model comes out. And no, you don't get an upgrade for free."

So yes, we get to beat up Talk good over this :). Otherwise, where would be the fun in the format war? :D

Seriously, for studios, this stuff is a big deal. They have a bunch of creative folks who want a new platform to innovate on. But without such features, they can not. So even if you don't care, others do.

While I understand why it's a big embarrassment to BD folks - (or at least their interactivity people). And it does shows the kind of gymnastics they have to go through inorder to pretend to have the same functionality as HD DVD at this point in time. Also it clearly demonstrate how MS provided superior support for HD DVD interactivity then Sun did for BD interactivity.
But I don't think this will be a long term differentiator.

It is not stamp size. It is a full SD picture. Did you think DVD was stamp size?

And it is a big deal in many dimensions. The biggest one is that someone is selling a luxury car and instead of giving you a/c, is giving you a battery operated portable fan, and says, "hey, this cools you too. Please use this until the next year's model comes out. And no, you don't get an upgrade for free."

So yes, we get to beat up Talk good over this :). Otherwise, where would be the fun in the format war? :D

Seriously, for studios, this stuff is a big deal. They have a bunch of creative folks who want a new platform to innovate on. But without such features, they can not. So even if you don't care, others do.

So where is the HDi network stuff ?

b2b

So it takes up 720x480 pixels out of 1920x1080 pixels?

What's inside, talking heads? And what is the picture quality like? Good enough to see like the laugh lines of old directors and stuff?

You know I used to buy DVDs for extras, especially some commentary tracks. But I find I usually don't put in the time to run the movie again to play the commentary.

That's not to say I'm completely uninterested. I might use the commentary more if you can go to specific points or the commentary is searchable.

But most of the time, instead of spending 2 hours replaying a movie I'd seen just to see the PIP commentary, I'm more likely to ... watch another movie.

And you would think this would be better for the studios, that people consume more titles than spend more time with the same title.

From page 3 of this (http://arstechnica.com/articles/headstart.ars/1) ArsTechnica interview with Aaron Greenberg, Group Marketing Manager for Xbox Live, and Scott Henson, product unit manager for Microsoft's game technology group:

:eek: Obviously his MSFT Borg implants were out of signal range or needed recharging.

Another BD advantage. Fake PiP!!! :rolleyes: We can have so much space with our expensive dual layer discs that we can even do.........Fake Pip! tada

At least that a more creative way to justify the need for 50GB discs than to say that MPEG-2 always looks better....:rolleyes: or that PCM is better than lossless :rolleyes:

...or those HD DVD guys can't do Fake PiP with their measly little 30GB discs..... (again forgetting the fact that they don't need to!) ;)

The best part is that the average consumer is going to look at 'The Descent', watch it, see "Picture in Picture", and be even further confused by the supposed differences between formats.

Jack: "Yes, but HD-DVD supports PiP on all titles, whereas Blu-Ray wont be able to offer that unless you purchase a player after June 2007".
Bill: "Huh? You are full of garbage. I was watching The Descent and it had PiP".
Jack: "But ... but ... "

:(

So what about PiP? I can get this on DVD easily. Pop in your Goonies DVD b/c it does it.

Obviously his MSFT Borg implants were out of signal range or needed recharging.

BSOD? :D

What exactly is in the PIP, a talking head in a stamp-sized window?

That is such a big deal to people?

It's a gimmick. Think back to the Ghostbusters DVD where they had the "shadow visual commentary" (Mystery Science 2000 style) . I hope studios aren't banking their creative talent on PiP. Things like the "white rabbit" or it's apparent evolution into Blu-wizard and the like aren't nearly worth the hype.

Read it again - his point is Sony is making their customers pay $200 for the next Betamax.I just got around to reading that article (http://arstechnica.com/articles/headstart.ars/3) and just before he makes that quote the article says this:

I was more intrigued with the HD DVD drive as a piece of hardware. I asked if we would ever see games use the drive. A firm "no." I asked if we would ever see a 360 with an HD DVD drive built-in. Another firm "no." No hesitation.

Taking it in that context it does sound like he is saying that Microsoft doesn't believe in putting a built-in HD DVD drive in the Xbox 360 since the format might fail. Honestly it doesn't sound like a snub at Sony so much as an honest comment about the dangers of this format war. I also noticed this comment which I hope is true:

They seem committed to the optional aspect of the HD DVD drive as it keeps the price down for consumers who don't care about HD DVD.

Read it again - his point is Sony is making their customers pay $200 for the next Betamax.Believe me, I read it several times. One could interpret it as you suggest, but a literal reading suggests otherwise:

Unless he was taken out of context, Henson is clearly referring to including an HD DVD drive in a 360. Which is currently, surprise, a $199 option. So a literal reading would be "We don't want to charge customers $200 extra [for an HD DVD drive] that may be the next Betamax".

I suspect an edit, retraction or clarification will shortly appear on the original ArsTechnica article. :pWe don't want to charge customers $200 extra for something that may be the next Betamax," Henson told me (whoops).

They seem committed to the optional aspect of the HD DVD drive as it keeps the price down for consumers who don't care about HD DVD. It's a much different strategy than Sony's bundling a Blu-ray drive with every PS3. I don't know if it's the right one—HD DVD would certainly catch on faster if they found a way to incorporate it into the 360's design—but the question of a higher price for the hardware is a tough one. Is it really worth raising the price for a feature people don't seem to be asking for? They tell me developers by and large aren't asking for more space or complaining about a lack of space with a regular DVD, outside of a few comments here and there. They seem committed to the optional aspect of the HD DVD drive as it keeps the price down for consumers who don't care about HD DVD The "whoops" is the interviewer's editorial comment. That is how the interviewer initially took it, but in reading the next paragraph it is clear that Henson is "committed to the optional aspect of the HD DVD drive" in context and comparison to "Sony's bundling a Blu-ray drive with every PS3"

In this context, the statement " We don't want to charge customers $200 extra for something that may be the next Betamax" is directly referencing the fact that Sony is doing that exact same thing, and that Blu-ray may be the next Betamax.

He may be agreeing with the uncertainty of the format war or the potential of HD DVD losing, but he is not conceding that HD DVD will be the next Betamax, he is saying that Xbox customers are better off having a choice because that is a possibility.

Since Xbox games don't need HD DVD capacity it is better to keep the price down for Xbox users unlike the PS3 strategy of forcing all users to buy something they may not want or need.

i.e. Read it again - his point is Sony is making their customers pay $200 for the next Betamax.

Let's see the specs of the v2 360 first. :) I really WANT them to include the HD-DVD drive internally (or at least have the option to retrofit it) since the separate add-on really offends the aesthetics of my system.

The "whoops" is the interviewer's editorial comment. That is how the interviewer initially took it, but in reading the next paragraph it is clear that Henson is "committed to the optional aspect of the HD DVD drive" in context and comparison to "Sony's bundling a Blu-ray drive with every PS3"

In this context, the statement " We don't want to charge customers $200 extra for something that may be the next Betamax" is directly referencing the fact that Sony is doing that exact same thing, and that Blu-ray may be the next Betamax.

He may be agreeing with the uncertainty of the format war or the potential of HD DVD losing, but he is not conceding that HD DVD will be the next Betamax, he is saying that Xbox customers are better off having a choice because that is a possibility.

Since Xbox games don't need HD DVD capacity it is better to keep the price down for Xbox users unlike the PS3 strategy of forcing all users to buy something they may not want or need.

Sony has built the PS3 architecture to last for a long time. I would even say that the "PS4" will still use the same architecture but with upgraded CELL processors and better GPUs. A 50gb BD disc could possibly still meet the requirements (but with improved access times) even 10 years out. By then the PS4 could have a 100GB drive that is backwards compatible with "old" 50GB PS3 game discs... Let your vision go past your nose and lots of possibilities are out there. Maybe 3D Blu-Ray movies...?? :)

b2b

Honestly it doesn't sound like a snub at Sony so much as an honest comment about the dangers of this format war.

No. Use of Betamax is not incidental here. Sony & Betamax obviously go together ...

BSOD? :D per my post above, the MSFT Borg implants were actually working correctly they were just assuming higher comprehension skills on the part of the interviewer (or readers). Obviously superior beings, working above our primitive level to understand that their statements should not always be "taken literally" ;) to get their true meaning.


BSOD? :D
BTW, I actually remember seeing the Bill Gates Windows 98 BSOD episode.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8363127660275444169

So it takes up 720x480 pixels out of 1920x1080 pixels?

What's inside, talking heads? And what is the picture quality like? Good enough to see like the laugh lines of old directors and stuff?

You know I used to buy DVDs for extras, especially some commentary tracks. But I find I usually don't put in the time to run the movie again to play the commentary.

That's not to say I'm completely uninterested. I might use the commentary more if you can go to specific points or the commentary is searchable.

But most of the time, instead of spending 2 hours replaying a movie I'd seen just to see the PIP commentary, I'm more likely to ... watch another movie.

And you would think this would be better for the studios, that people consume more titles than spend more time with the same title.

I don't care that much about PIP myself. But note that a 480 line picture properly sized can appear to have the same relative detail (say per degree of visual field) as a larger HD picture, except of course smaller. So SD pictures can look quite good embedded within a large HD picture.

For instance here's a sample I posted a couple years ago when the topic came up of using SD inserts inside HD pictures for news or sports.

See: www.trbarry.com/Supremes_vs_VE.jpg

- Tom

We can have so much space with our expensive dual layer discs that we can even do.........Fake Pip! tada

At least that a more creative way to justify the need for 50GB discs than to say that MPEG-2 always looks better....:rolleyes: or that PCM is better than lossless :rolleyes:

...or those HD DVD guys can't do Fake PiP with their measly little 30GB discs..... (again forgetting the fact that they don't need to!) ;)
Actually, not true. I know of at least a few movies that we could have done fake PiP on. Happy Gilmore, Polar Express, probably Batman Begins. ;). Let's see BD do their fake PiP trick on King Kong, where HD DVD has real PiP.

Sony has built the PS3 architecture to last for a long time. I would even say that the "PS4" will still use the same architecture but with upgraded CELL processors and better GPUs. A 50gb BD disc could possibly still meet the requirements (but with improved access times) even 10 years out. By then the PS4 could have a 100GB drive that is backwards compatible with "old" 50GB PS3 game discs... Let your vision go past your nose and lots of possibilities are out there. Maybe 3D Blu-Ray movies...?? :)

b2b My friend, I think we may have stumbled on the key differences between HD DVD and Blu-ray supporters.

The HD DVD camp says it is best suited for immediate and quicker rollout of a superior HD audio and video format. Every month we waste or delay is time wasted in moving people away from DVDs.

HD optical formats will not need to go beyond HD DVDs capacity because software can make better use of the space available and another cheap disc can always be used if one is not enough as long as the critical task of a long movie and its audio and mandatory extras can fit on a disc.

But time is critical, because downloading and bandwidth will increase eventually and since consumers are buying HDTVs now, it is better for them to get HD DVDs to play on them.

HD DVD can do the job quicker, at lower cost, and can be available for a wider range of content providers. Software can advance quicker than hardware limitations.

The Blu-ray camp is looking to the future and feels that patience in the short term will eventually pay off with more robust capability that will be beneficial to have in the future, because we don't know what the future needs will be.

Any delays are about to be overcome, but eventually the extra bandwidth and space will come in handy. Besides most of the consumer electonics industry and movie studios are supporting Blu-ray so it has momentum on its side and there is a better chance consumers will get what they want and need.

Eventually costs will come down and a little patience now will deliver big in the future. Even if it will take more time we can afford to wait.

Let's see the specs of the v2 360 first. :) I really WANT them to include the HD-DVD drive internally (or at least have the option to retrofit it) since the separate add-on really offends the aesthetics of my system.

I bet they give it some cool name like "XBOX 360 TURBO" or "XBOX 360 NeXTgen"

or "XBOX 360+" ("+" = the stuff we forgot on the first 10 million or so) ;)

b2b

Blu-ray PiP is like... (http://www.emptysocket.com/Images/bdpip.jpg)

My friend, I think we may have stumbled on the key differences between HD DVD and Blu-ray supporters.

The HD DVD camp says it is best suited for immediate and quicker rollout of a superior HD audio and video format. Every month we waste or delay is time wasted in moving people away from DVDs.

HD optical formats will not need to go beyond HD DVDs capacity because software can make better use of the space available and another cheap disc can always be used if one is not enough as long as the critical task of a long movie and its audio and mandatory extras can fit on a disc.

But time is critical, because downloading and bandwidth will increase eventually and since consumers are buying HDTVs now, it is better for them to get HD DVDs to play on them.

HD DVD can do the job quicker, at lower cost, and can be available for a wider range of content providers. Software can advance quicker than hardware limitations.

The Blu-ray camp is looking to the future and feels that patience in the short term will eventually pay off with more robust capability that will be beneficial to have in the future, because we don't know what the future needs will be.

Any delays are about to be overcome, but eventually the extra bandwidth and space will come in handy. Besides most of the consumer electonics industry and movie studios are supporting Blu-ray so it has momentum on its side and there is a better chance consumers will get what they want and need.

Eventually costs will come down and a little patience now will deliver big in the future. Even if it will take more time we can afford to wait.

Did you not see my post about the HD-DVD side wanting all HD-DVD discs to be combo flippers @ 2.5 times the cost of DVD ?? This old "HD-DVD" is cheaper talking point is getting pretty thin when the studios obviously don't see it as a issue as evidenced by Warners new Total HD plans.

Give it a rest. ;)

BD-25GB are probably going to be cheaper than HD-DVD-30GB discs anyhow. VC-1 makes the 5GB loss a non-issue too. (Thanks Amir.. :) )

b2b

Then you had better be prepared for more HD-DVD discs to hate... ;)

Quote:
Hybrid HD discs, said Mueller, will certainly be an important factor, at least in the
short term – presumably until the format war shakes down one way or another.
“This year about 8-12% of all HD discs, six titles so far, have been of this format,
and have been limited by the amount of manufacturing capacity – virtually all discs
would be of this format right now if we had the capacity to do so.”The discs
produced to date were of the HD-15/DVD-9 format, with HD-30/DVD-9 titles due to
be available soon after. For 2007,Mueller projected that 15-20% of discs will be hybrids
– again, possibly more as a result of manufacturing capacity than anything else, and
that by 2008 it could be based on the cost of manufacture and the eventual outcome
of BD versus HD.



b2b


Ironic, but HD-DVD's ease of manufacture may end up being a tad negative for conusmers.

Hybirds - whether you like them or not they may be the only option, for $5 more
HD30 - Fits the movie great, and if extras are in HD we can put them on a separate disc - for $5-$10 extra. It's a "double disc set" afterall. Cheap for the studio, more from me.


It's actually refreshing lately to see that both formats are doing well enough that the only thing left to argue over are the profiles, interactive features, and PIP. Things that are absolutely meaningless (to me anyway).

HD-DVD got out King Kong on one disc. Which says that if there ever are any issues on something like SPR or LOTR, they will be minor.

BD appears to have smoothed out BD50 manufacturing enough for Fox and Disney to use it when desired.


And reviews for movies from both sides appear to be consistantly good to great.

Ironic, but HD-DVD's ease of manufacture may end up being a tad negative for conusmers.

Hybirds - whether you like them or not they may be the only option, for $5 more
HD30 - Fits the movie great, and if extras are in HD we can put them on a separate disc - for $5-$10 extra. It's a "double disc set" afterall. Cheap for the studio, more from me.


It's actually refreshing lately to see that both formats are doing well enough that the only thing left to argue over are the profiles, interactive features, and PIP. Things that are absolutely meaningless (to me anyway).

HD-DVD got out King Kong on one disc. Which says that if there ever are any issues on something like SPR or LOTR, they will be minor.

BD appears to have smoothed out BD50 manufacturing enough for Fox and Disney to use it when desired.


And reviews for movies from both sides appear to be consistantly good to great.

There are more comments in the article that show what a PITA these combo discs are to make. Yields are 75% (some kind of "dust" problem) and the bonding layer is a lot more critical.

b2b

My friend, I think we may have stumbled on the key differences between HD DVD and Blu-ray supporters.

The HD DVD camp says it is best suited for immediate and quicker rollout of a superior HD audio and video format. Every month we waste or delay is time wasted in moving people away from DVDs.

HD optical formats will not need to go beyond HD DVDs capacity because software can make better use of the space available and another cheap disc can always be used if one is not enough as long as the critical task of a long movie and its audio and mandatory extras can fit on a disc.

But time is critical, because downloading and bandwidth will increase eventually and since consumers are buying HDTVs now, it is better for them to get HD DVDs to play on them.

HD DVD can do the job quicker, at lower cost, and can be available for a wider range of content providers. Software can advance quicker than hardware limitations.

The Blu-ray camp is looking to the future and feels that patience in the short term will eventually pay off with more robust capability that will be beneficial to have in the future, because we don't know what the future needs will be.

Any delays are about to be overcome, but eventually the extra bandwidth and space will come in handy. Besides most of the consumer electonics industry and movie studios are supporting Blu-ray so it has momentum on its side and there is a better chance consumers will get what they want and need.

Eventually costs will come down and a little patience now will deliver big in the future. Even if it will take more time we can afford to wait.You summed it up quite nicely.

Except for this:
HD DVD can do the job quicker, at lower cost, and can be available for a wider range of content providers. Software can advance quicker than hardware limitations.There is nothing in HD-DVD hardware that is inherently cheaper -- there are trade-offs on both sides. I will agree with replication cost even without the numbers based on logical analysis, but that is short term. Apart from that software improvements will be beneficial to both the formats. What we have seen so far is mostly politics, IMO. In case of HD-DVD, the software advances are almost mandatory whereas, BD has a little luxury (e.g., this fake PiP).

From where I stand, big difference is in the choices made to reach to a certain goal and that goals are also slightly different. BD aimed a little higher, and is delayed. And of course, bad execution. Actually, bad execution is perhaps the biggest difference. I believe this may also be because of so many CE companies being involved (compatibility testing required). The advantage of big support comes with the penalty of sluggishness as a whole, I think. So yes, Blu-ray is about long term. Their short term progress could have been better, I must say.

Those who would have quit Blu-ray because of execution so far, would already have quit! Remaining are definitely more patient. Being a human, I may get frustrated at times, but I do have a lot of patience. :)

No. Use of Betamax is not incidental here. Sony & Betamax obviously go together ...I admit it would be somewhat amazing for him to so freely talk about the format war. Still even the interviewer thought he meant it that way and notice that the interviewer had asked about the HD DVD drive at first and that Henson includes the price of the HD DVD drive in his reply.

I was more intrigued with the HD DVD drive as a piece of hardware. I asked if we would ever see games use the drive. A firm "no." I asked if we would ever see a 360 with an HD DVD drive built-in. Another firm "no." No hesitation.

"We don't want to charge customers $200 extra for something that may be the next Betamax," Henson told me (whoops).

They seem committed to the optional aspect of the HD DVD drive as it keeps the price down for consumers who don't care about HD DVD.

Also, I think the PiP on at least some HD DVDs can be taken up and down easily by the user at pretty much any point.

On UControl titles (Universal), this seems to be the way it's done, where you can choose to expose the PiP, or the other features, or not, when you get an indicator that the feature is available. With Warner's IME, it looks like you don't have the choice, either IME is on or it's not, and when on, the PiP just appears and disappears when there's content.

The only Paramount title I have so far is MI3, and it looks like a branching feature, where the commentary becomes the whole experience, also not up to the end user to switch at "view-time."

I think all three of these variations are interesting. It will be kind of cool to see which of these becomes the predominant way that interactivity is presented, or if they'll just continue down their chosen paths of being studio dependant.

I would be pretty concerned if this were the long term solution for PiP on Blu-ray.

Yeah, it's not the most effecient or technically sound way of doing it, especially with bandwidth and storage...OK...it's a downright KLUDGE, but I don't believe it will be THE way it's implemented. One has to believe the future players will have the PiP decoders...they really can't rely on this for PiP...can they?

But in the usual AVS Forum style (as of late, unfortunately), this will be another point of weakness that the opposing side will feast on....Any bets on how long it will be before we see sigs with "Just Say No To Pseudo-PiP" and "BD PiP...The Big Lie!!"

Did you not see my post about the HD-DVD side wanting all HD-DVD discs to be combo flippers @ 2.5 times the cost of DVD ?? This old "HD-DVD" is cheaper talking point is getting pretty thin when the studios obviously don't see it as a issue as evidenced by Warners new Total HD plans.

Give it a rest. ;)

BD-25GB are probably going to be cheaper than HD-DVD-30GB discs anyhow. VC-1 makes the 5GB loss a non-issue too. (Thanks Amir.. :) )

b2b Jeepers, I was trying to summarize the arguments of both camps.

You really think that any Blu-ray disc is cheaper to manufacture than a HD DVD disc? Not just close, but actually cheaper to produce than a disc that shares the same physical structure as a DVD? If its not the case now, when do you think that will happen?

BTW, do you agree with the other points in my above post?

Sony has built the PS3 architecture to last for a long time. I would even say that the "PS4" will still use the same architecture but with upgraded CELL processors and better GPUs. A 50gb BD disc could possibly still meet the requirements (but with improved access times) even 10 years out. By then the PS4 could have a 100GB drive that is backwards compatible with "old" 50GB PS3 game discs... Let your vision go past your nose and lots of possibilities are out there. Maybe 3D Blu-Ray movies...?? :)

b2b

Future proof is a foolish game to play. Moore's law will ensure anyone who tries to design a "long term design" gets smashed. The PS3 has about 2x the pixel pushing power of the xbox360 however this is not enough to extend its lifetime past that of any other console. Moore's law will ensure a console released in 5 years (xbox720?) could either cost the same as current system and have about 8x the power or have a smaller increase in performance and a component cost cut.

There is nothing about the PS3 other than Sony hype that makes it anymore than any other console... All of which were labeled as revolutionary in their time.

You summed it up quite nicely.

Except for this:
There is nothing in HD-DVD hardware that is inherently cheaper -- there are trade-offs on both sides. I will agree with replication cost even without the numbers based on logical analysis, but that is short term. Apart from that software improvements will be beneficial to both the formats. What we have seen so far is mostly politics, IMO. In case of HD-DVD, the software advances are almost mandatory whereas, BD has a little luxury (e.g., this fake PiP).

From where I stand, big difference is in the choices made to reach to a certain goal and that goals are also slightly different. BD aimed a little higher, and is delayed. And of course, bad execution. Actually, bad execution is perhaps the biggest difference. I believe this may also be because of so many CE companies being involved (compatibility testing required). The advantage of big support comes with the penalty of sluggishness as a whole, I think. So yes, Blu-ray is about long term. Their short term progress could have been better, I must say.

Those who would have quit Blu-ray because of execution so far, would already have quit! Remaining are definitely more patient. Being a human, I may get frustrated at times, but I do have a lot of patience. :)

My patience with Blu-Ray is open-ended until they openly fail in their goals. Why settle for second best ?? HD-DVD will be selling "good enough" tomorrow just the same as they are today, now won't they.. :)

b2b

Future proof is a foolish game to play. Moore's law will ensure anyone who tries to design a "long term design" gets smashed. The PS3 has about 2x the pixel pushing power of the xbox360 however this is not enough to extend its lifetime past that of any other console. Moore's law will ensure a console released in 5 years (xbox720?) could either cost the same as current system and have about 8x the power or have a smaller increase in performance and a component cost cut.

There is nothing about the PS3 other than Sony hype that makes it anymore than any other console... All of which were labeled as revolutionary in their time.

How long has the Intel processor architecture lasted ?? The current CELL is the "8088" for it's architecture.

b2b

I admit it would be somewhat amazing for him to so freely talk about the format war. Still even the interviewer thought he meant it that way and notice that the interviewer had asked about the HD DVD drive at first and that Henson includes the price of the HD DVD drive in his reply.

Interviewers are always twisting to make sensational "news". That is why I like complete questions and answers - unedited. Anything can be edited and commented to make look bad - very bad (like they do at cheap Leno shows).

Basic thing to know is - he thinks PS3 is $200 more because of BluRay. Now read what he said again ...

"We don't want to charge customers $200 extra for something that may be the next Betamax," (like sony is doing with their BD - which may be the next BetaMax)

Yes, he could have worded it better. Even better still, the interviewer SHOULD have asked him to clarify (instead of reporting it as some sensational news).

How long has the Intel processor architecture lasted ?? The current CELL is the "8088" for it's architecture.

b2b
As a guy who spent a good bit of time in processor design companies, I can tell you that hundreds of instruction sets have come and gone. Indeed, you have to be pretty crazy to invent new ones. Just look at how many people license ARM, MIPS, etc. cores instead of building new ones.

So yes, they are at 8088 level but they might just stay there.

As a guy who spent a good bit of time in processor design companies, I can tell you that hundreds of instruction sets have come and gone. Indeed, you have to be pretty crazy to invent new ones. Just look at how many people license ARM, MIPS, etc. cores instead of building new ones.

So yes, they are at 8088 level but they might just stay there.

Maybe you should get the "team" to look at porting the VC-1 encoder to the new IBM CELL blade servers...
The QS20 blades, each with two 3.2GHz Cell Broadband Engine processors, are good for high-performance computing tasks such as seismic research, encryption, digital image rendering and military surveillance.

IBM, Sony and Toshiba co-developed the Cell processor for the Sony PlayStation 3 and Toshiba video products. The chip has a main Power processor core and eight helper cores specially designed for types of calculations.

IBM Cell blade customers include the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6115225.html

Fraunhofer likes them.. Maybe "crazy" Tosh could help out with the port... :)

b2b

Maybe you should get the "team" to look at porting the VC-1 encoder to the new IBM CELL blade servers...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6115225.html

Fraunhofer likes them.. Maybe "crazy" Tosh could help out with the port... :)

b2b
Yup, that is a heap of support. You want to search to see how many apps there are for MIPS, ARM and X86? I would think not.

There is more to this stuff than googling b2b. Trust me, you don't want to defend everything under the sun.....

Yup, that is a heap of support. You want to search to see how many apps there are for MIPS, ARM and X86? I would think not.

There is more to this stuff than googling b2b. Trust me, you don't want to defend everything under the sun.....

It does have a PowerPC core, (similar to the Xb360) so the new code is for SPEs. You would love it being a old UNIX guy at heart... Who knows, maybe you could turn one of those week long VC-1 encoding sessions into an after-lunch project.. :)

b2b

So yes, they are at 8088 level but they might just stay there.

Right. :rolleyes:

My patience with Blu-Ray is open-ended until they openly fail in their goals. Why settle for second best ?? HD-DVD will be selling "good enough" tomorrow just the same as they are today, now won't they.. :)

b2bAlmost the same thoughts, except that I think HD-DVD has done quite well in spite of the two limitations.

As far as Blu-ray is concerned: When I had the Samsung player, I was quite disappointed from the quality of initial movies that I bought, but I am quite happy with the quality I have been seeing on recent movies on PS3. I have a Netflix account, so I don't have to build up a big Blu-ray library either; only the must haves.

If one can get hold of a PS3, it is a good time to jump in. :)

Right. :rolleyes:

Maybe he is holding out for "King Kong"... :)
Despite IBM’s evident advancements in clock speed, Intel will still be holding firm to its multi-core approach to performance. According to the program schedule for ISSCC, Intel will reveal more details regarding its 80-core Tera-scale processor which can run 1.28 trillion floating-point operations per second.

Described as a “network-on-chip architecture,” the 225 square millimeter chip has 80 cores, each operating at 4GHz. The die is built using a 65nm process and is able to “achieve a peak performance of 1.0TFLOPS at 1V while dissipating 98W.” Currently, the processor is not able to run conventional applications for Intel chips.

Even though the chip is currently little more than a prototype, Intel CEO Paul Otellini claims it will be available within five years. The processor was first announced last September at the Intel Developer Forum.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5584&ref=y

b2b

As a guy who spent a good bit of time in processor design companies, I can tell you that hundreds of instruction sets have come and gone. Indeed, you have to be pretty crazy to invent new ones. Just look at how many people license ARM, MIPS, etc. cores instead of building new ones.

So yes, they are at 8088 level but they might just stay there.

Or in other words.....the chances of you launching a new diner that turns into the next McDonalds are about the same as your odds of launching the next 8088. ARM, MIPS and PowerPC have each carved out niche markets for themselves where thay add value. Then you have.....

88XXX
Alpha
Crusoe
SPARC
PA-Risc
i960
Itanium
Intel's "network-on-chip architecture"

And let's not forget the Hitachi SuperH. The 32 bit RISC architecture used in the Sega Saturn and Dreamcast......on second thought let's not go there.

When you look at the specs for i960, Itanium and now the "network-on-chip architecture" they all looked great in their day. However it takes more than great specs to produce a product that people want to buy and becomes successful in the marketplace.

Personally I think the Frankendisc is a short term solution for a short term problem. Retailers are not happy about stocking 3 copies of the same movie. Studios are trying to maximize their use of the retail space that is available for their products, hence the Frankendisc.

Assuming universal players dominate, I believe studios will move toward releasing a single disc that is DVD + the HD format they've standardized on. This won't happen right away if their is a premium for retailers and studios to squeeze out of the HD format, but over time it will go in this direction. This will allow retailers to continue to stock one disc for each movie as opposed to 3.

So it takes up 720x480 pixels out of 1920x1080 pixels?

What's inside, talking heads? And what is the picture quality like? Good enough to see like the laugh lines of old directors and stuff?
Quality can be very good - we could easily do a full quality SD movie in a PIP track. Of course, most PIP isn't that hard to encode, since it is often just talking heads.

Another cool feature in the players that hasn't been used yet is luma-keyed PIP, which lets you have non-rectangular PIP. So the talking head is just the head, with the movie showing underneath it.

It's a gimmick. Think back to the Ghostbusters DVD where they had the "shadow visual commentary" (Mystery Science 2000 style) . I hope studios aren't banking their creative talent on PiP. Things like the "white rabbit" or it's apparent evolution into Blu-wizard and the like aren't nearly worth the hype.
Actually, the Ghostbuster's DVD was implemented using the RLE-encoded subtitle track! Very cool, and some amazingly complex authoring at the time. Took a couple of weeks of Debabelizer time to render out all the TIFFs from what I've heard.

My patience with Blu-Ray is open-ended until they openly fail in their goals. Why settle for second best ?? HD-DVD will be selling "good enough" tomorrow just the same as they are today, now won't they.. :)

Excellent! I realize you'll be one of the harder AVS nuts to crack, but we'll win you to HD DVD eventually, and it sounds like you've been thinking about what that would take.

So, what would would "openly fail in their goals" look like to you? What do you need to see HD DVD do and BD not to bring you over to us?

HD-DVD supporters love to talk about PiP until the subject turns to CE players with 24p output. Then suddenly PiP isn't important anymore. :)

HD-DVD supporters love to talk about PiP until the subject turns to CE players with 24p output. Then suddenly PiP isn't important anymore. :)

After I get the firmware update for 1080p24 on my XA2 I'll give you an update on the PiP functionality. ;)

HD-DVD supporters love to talk about PiP until the subject turns to CE players with 24p output. Then suddenly PiP isn't important anymore. :)
Eh?

There's nothing about PIP that precludes 24p output with HD DVD.

And PIP can be encoded at 24p as well as the main feature.

Maybe you're thinking that 60i PIP would get convered to 24p with 24p output? Which is by definition true, but a BD disc would have to do the same conversion before encoding anyway, since BD doesn't allow different frame rates between main and PIP.

Also it clearly demonstrate how MS provided superior support for HD DVD interactivity then Sun did for BD interactivity.Sun had nothing to do with secondary video (or the lack thereof). All the BD-J API's are there, what's missing is either hardware that supports it or a firmware implementation that enables it.

You would both be correct in your apoplectic responses if this were the only mechanism for Blu-ray to offer PiP. It isn't. All players released after June 07 (and, I predict, the vast majority of players released before then), support secondary video which, as I understand it, is slightly more flexible than that provided for in the HD-DVD specification. Lionsgate decided to leverage the extra capacity of BD50 to build a PiP experience which doesn't require secondary video support. Why is this a bad thing? I suspect they could largely use the initial encode for the PiP encode (compressionists, feel free to jump in here), so this would require way less than double the effort, and as Keith and I have posted, there are other potential benefits. The Descent has been lauded as having exemplary AQ and PQ, so clearly the final product didn't suffer as a result.

I'm not even beginning to suggest this is the preferred way nor will become the default way to do PiP. As Ben suggests, there are clearly many advantages to using a secondary video decoder. Nonetheless, this demonstrates very creative leveraging of Blu-ray strengths by The Descent creative team, and such outside-the-box thinking may well lead to other content which simply can't be done any other way.

In and of itself, it's not a bad thing, Talk. But here, it was intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The discussion regarding it in the previous months has included topics such as:

- Hardware decoder suppot
- BD-J API's
- Firmware revisions
- PiP resolution capability
- Mux/BW implications
- etc...

To come here and say this title has "PiP" is a stretch. I don't think your motive was to be intellectually insulting, so instead it looks desperate. Especially when the phrasing was along the lines of "has PiP but doesn't use the BD-Video API's, but all current players support it". While true, the implication of that is that it was taking advantage of player hardware PiP functionality directly, rather than via the API as of yet. Instead it's a pre-rendered video. Heck I could say "HD DVD currently supports playing video backwards!" by including a seperate encode that's selectable in the menu.

It wasn't until some digging happened that this came to light (see Alex's Insider post). You would look a lot better if you had just told us the score. Or proclaim this as an excellent example of branching capability, rather than this.

The best part is that the average consumer is going to look at 'The Descent', watch it, see "Picture in Picture", and be even further confused by the supposed differences between formats.

Jack: "Yes, but HD-DVD supports PiP on all titles, whereas Blu-Ray wont be able to offer that unless you purchase a player after June 2007".
Bill: "Huh? You are full of garbage. I was watching The Descent and it had PiP".
Jack: "But ... but ... "

:(

I agree. Or, I submit that even worse is the confusion when a customer with one of today's players enjoys the psuedo PiP (pPiP?) on titles released over the next several months, and then authoring houses switch over to "real" PiP. Then all of the sudden his deck, which has given him this "feature" all along, stops working?

What then? Even more frusteration that the deck that he paid big $$$ for can no longer do what it used to? Or maybe the customer decides that it must be the newer titles that are broken instead?

The only way around this would be to include the pPiP secondary stream in future titles as well, or you "abandon" the early adopter customers.

HD-DVD supporters love to talk about PiP until the subject turns to CE players with 24p output. Then suddenly PiP isn't important anymore. :) The option to go to 24 or 60 fps would be nice, as I could live with my not being able to use pip in pure 24 fps film mode. I could shift to 60 fps mode to do the interactive and pip experience, something a a true pip solution can deliver to me. Or I can live with the pip translated or recoded at 24 fps to begin with.

The longing for 24fps multiples to eliminate judder and to provide a purer film experience implies you wouldn't be watching the extra stuff during that movie viewing session anyway.

Or i can just wait until I get a 120fps capable display and I can 2 x 60 and 5 x 24 at the same time.

Choice is good.

BTW I wonder is the Reon HQV Silicon Optix processor in the HD XA2 is firmware upgradable to that? The Reon chip I think is.

In and of itself, it's not a bad thing,..............

I find it very odd you fail to remember the early days of DVD. They were doing new stuff, (AUTHORING) all the time back then, and players would not play some titles, history seems to show that did not hurt DVD too much in the long run. :D

So it takes up 720x480 pixels out of 1920x1080 pixels?

What's inside, talking heads? And what is the picture quality like? Good enough to see like the laugh lines of old directors and stuff?

You know I used to buy DVDs for extras, especially some commentary tracks. But I find I usually don't put in the time to run the movie again to play the commentary.

That's not to say I'm completely uninterested. I might use the commentary more if you can go to specific points or the commentary is searchable.

But most of the time, instead of spending 2 hours replaying a movie I'd seen just to see the PIP commentary, I'm more likely to ... watch another movie.

And you would think this would be better for the studios, that people consume more titles than spend more time with the same title.

Honestly, I'm not a huge interactivity nut either. However, I am also pretty pro "truth in advertising". If the BDA is going to market and (ab)use PiP, and other advanced intaractivity features (and they certainly are), then they should be straight forward about them, and not pull this mesterious profile and pPiP hocus-pocus.

Ultimately both sides are telling us that interactivity is going to be able to accomplish a lot more than what we are used to, so although it may not be terribly compelling to me now, I may find myself liking it more as time goes on and the collective bar is raised for that stuff (as I already find myself appreciating the dynamicly-overlayed menus today as less intrusive).

As for the resolution, I don't think that's a showstopper. My triple-tuner HD DVR can do PiP windows with either SD or HD content scaled to fit in to the smaller window. At ~1/9th the screen size even SD sources looks great... as a matter of fact the only real difference you see is the aspect ratio on the smaller window.

And SD satellite insn't even 720x480, which on HD DVD so far looks every bit as HD as the main picture when inlaid even on a rather large (133") screen. The PiP ging progressive rather than interlace would make a far bigger difference, as my deinterlacer locks on to the progressive cadence of the main picture, and tossing an interlaced sub-picture can result in the jaggies.

(While we had a second football game running in the PiP window, a buddy of mine said "Your PiP window is larger than my main TV set!) :D

You summed it up quite nicely.

Except for this:
There is nothing in HD-DVD hardware that is inherently cheaper -- there are trade-offs on both sides. I will agree with replication cost even without the numbers based on logical analysis, but that is short term. Apart from that software improvements will be beneficial to both the formats. What we have seen so far is mostly politics, IMO. In case of HD-DVD, the software advances are almost mandatory whereas, BD has a little luxury (e.g., this fake PiP).

From where I stand, big difference is in the choices made to reach to a certain goal and that goals are also slightly different. BD aimed a little higher, and is delayed. And of course, bad execution. Actually, bad execution is perhaps the biggest difference. I believe this may also be because of so many CE companies being involved (compatibility testing required). The advantage of big support comes with the penalty of sluggishness as a whole, I think. So yes, Blu-ray is about long term. Their short term progress could have been better, I must say.

Those who would have quit Blu-ray because of execution so far, would already have quit! Remaining are definitely more patient. Being a human, I may get frustrated at times, but I do have a lot of patience. :) (emphasis mine)

I believe that it was relatively well accepted here that, although the rest of the decks are pretty close in structure, hence price, that because of the substrate depth (.6 vs .1 mm) that BD drives would neccessarly be more complicated, thus being more expensive. Either two laser pickup heads would be required, or a single pick up with a lens that required refocusing would be needed. Hence it would indeed be more expensive.

I think I remember the teardown pics showing the BD drive was closer to the latter design...

HD-DVD supporters love to talk about PiP until the subject turns to CE players with 24p output. Then suddenly PiP isn't important anymore. :)

I've openly criticised HD DVD for not having a 24p roadmap

I've openly critcised BD for PiP/profile issues


The difference I've seen: One side seems to want to do something about it, whereas the other side seems to downplay my opinion as a consumer providing feedback.

No. Use of Betamax is not incidental here. Sony & Betamax obviously go together ...

Certainly the use of the term was intended to take a shot at Sony. But, it backfired since it was used to explain why they wouldn't make an Xbox 360 with a internalized HD DVD drive (i.e. the same mistake). So, it was using Betamax as the cautionary tale and applying it to HD DVD.

But, since the BD drive is used for the games for PS/3, and an HD DVD drive would still a DVD drive for Xbox 360, it can't really be truelly Betamaxed in either case except for those using it ONLY for movie playback. So, I'm not sure why this Betamax concern automatically means MS wouldn't provide the option of an HD DVD drive in an Xbox 360.

Betamax now seems to have been distilled down to "price wins, and Sony eats babies" by most that use it as a club. But, there once was a format that:

- Arrived first
- Had better initial (sustained?) quality
- Lower capacity
- Poor CE support
- Fought a very long format war
- Lost all studio support
- Stopped being made

Gary

HD-DVD supporters love to talk about PiP until the subject turns to CE players with 24p output. Then suddenly PiP isn't important anymore. :)


Its a foregone conclusion.... The XA2 will probably have 1080P24 support before the BD players have codec support this spring. Do you have a monitor which supports 24P now? If not, why worry about it.

Sun had nothing to do with secondary video (or the lack thereof). All the BD-J API's are there, what's missing is either hardware that supports it or a firmware implementation that enables it. (emphasis mine)

Talk, you gave The Descent as proof that all current decks support PiP.

Which statement, your current, or your previous is correct?

(As a friendly gesture, I'll let you change one fo them to "supports pPiP" instead) ;)

Blu-ray PiP is like... (http://www.emptysocket.com/Images/bdpip.jpg)
THAT, my friend, is hilarious! :p :p

I must admit, I have been expecting someone to tell us that PiP is just a gimmick and isn't imporant to anyone until late 2007....

Oh wait.. oh sorry, already happened :)

Except for this:
There is nothing in HD-DVD hardware that is inherently cheaper
Can I just ask then why the Bluray players are 2 to 3 times the price? Is it because the Bluray side thought they had the game stitched up and could name a price, an wouldn't that be price-fixing and anti-competitive?

Yeah, it's not the most effecient or technically sound way of doing it, especially with bandwidth and storage...OK...it's a downright KLUDGE, but I don't believe it will be THE way it's implemented. One has to believe the future players will have the PiP decoders...they really can't rely on this for PiP...can they?
I must say that this situation vividly highlights why I have been calling these 1st Gen players obsolete. The players that don't have the capability of doing true PiP will ALWAYS require these kuldges. So either the bluray side will drop all support for the first gen machines because of the wasted resources, time and space, or , they will have to continue wasting all of the above to keep the charade going.

Based on talk's opinion that these earlier player are only the minority, I think we have our answer.

But I am glad that we understand a lot better what is really happening...

Future proof is a foolish game to play. Moore's law will ensure anyone who tries to design a "long term design" gets smashed. The PS3 has about 2x the pixel pushing power of the xbox360 however this is not enough to extend its lifetime past that of any other console. Moore's law will ensure a console released in 5 years (xbox720?) could either cost the same as current system and have about 8x the power or have a smaller increase in performance and a component cost cut.

There is nothing about the PS3 other than Sony hype that makes it anymore than any other console... All of which were labeled as revolutionary in their time.

Agreed ... plus, it seems that the majority of the components in the PS3 were available and ready when the Xbox 360 launched. They delayed that 'cutting edge' technology release another year roughly to be able to include Blu-Ray. IMO, that's why games, side-by-side, are roughly the same. Sure, PS3 has some better titles ... and Xbox 360 has some better titles ... but overall ... it's the same, and certainly not $200 better or worse. Third party titles are almost all but identical (with the nod going to Xbox because if its ability to Scale the Content to 1080p). First party games, frankly, are going to run into the same issue with the scaler (or lack thereof in the PS3). I'm sure Resistance would look great upscaled to 1080p ... too bad that can't happen on today's hardware.

Besides, didn't Sony say that the PS3 would be fully 1080p? Games in 1080p? Wasn't resistance supposed to be released in 1080p? But then it got cycled down to 720p? Sony, frankly, can't release games in 1080p unless they also have the game in a 720p or 1080i version on the same disc (Thank goodness for BD50!- :rolleyes: ). If they tried that, any game in 1080p is going to show up at 480p (no scaler) on most HDTV's (since most in the market are non-1080p), correct?

Of course, the HM will surely state that this can be done, with two versions of the game since BD50 has all that wonderful space. But then ... games really don't need BD50 ... they just needed a hardware scaler ... didn't they? :p

Yup, that is a heap of support. You want to search to see how many apps there are for MIPS, ARM and X86? I would think not.

There is more to this stuff than googling b2b. Trust me, you don't want to defend everything under the sun.....
I remember 10 years ago we were looking to put a brand new computer in for our main database system. One of the options we looks at was a 96 processor Solaris systems.

But in the end we picked a very new entrant to the market, an 8 processor PowerPC system designed by Bull and IBM, which seriously spanked the Solaris system because of overal much better design (crossbar switching bus, and better supporting components).

The same PowerPC (times 3) effectively, is in the 360 now, but it has better supporting components that the PS3 according to most experts.

Someone here just said that the PS3 has twice the "pixel puching power" of the 360 - this is not so. The PS3 has more CPU power, but is less powerful on the Graphics Processor Unit, especially at 1080p, so the PS3 CPU has to help out with almost everything, leaving them matched, but with the 360 being far easier to program as a result.

IMO, it seems like a similar analogy to the Bluray thing, to me, since all of the extra space and bandwidth seems to being squandered to make up for other shortcomings that are becoming more apparent.

To come here and say this title has "PiP" is a stretch.

It wasn't until some digging happened that this came to light (see Alex's Insider post).Sorry, Steve, I wrote months ago (as Amir recently referenced) that PiP could still be supported by non secondary-video enabled players using the method used by The Descent. We have an issue of definition here. PiP is a UI element. Secondary video is a hardware capability. You're complaining about the lack of secondary video support on all Blu-ray players; I agree with your concern. My point all along has been that there are multiple ways to support PiP, and in the absence of secondary video support the fact that BD can support 50GB provides an alternative way to present PiP. It may not be as "elegant" a solution, but it does the job of providing the user an enhanced commentary track with video.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm trying to hide something, but my posting record will bear out that I've been upfront about this.
I believe that it was relatively well accepted here that, although the rest of the decks are pretty close in structure, hence price, that because of the substrate depth (.6 vs .1 mm) that BD drives would neccessarly be more complicated, thus being more expensive. Either two laser pickup heads would be required, or a single pick up with a lens that required refocusing would be needed. Hence it would indeed be more expensive.And it's also well-accepted that the current SoC solutions aren't sufficient for supporting HD-DVD, which adds cost and results in a PC-type solution. My guess is these costs appear to be comparable to the added Blu-ray OPU costs (especially given that Blu-ray OPU's are being produced in much higher volume today).
Talk, you gave The Descent as proof that all current decks support PiP.
Which statement, your current, or your previous is correct?PiP is a user interface element which can be implemented different ways. All Blu-ray players can support PiP. Secondary video is a hardware feature. All Blu-ray players do not support secondary video (though all new players released after 6/07 will be required to).

- Talk

Can I just ask then why the Bluray players are 2 to 3 times the price?They aren't. The PS3 is retail $499, which is the lowest price of any complete HD-DVD player.
Is it because the Bluray side thought they had the game stitched up and could name a price, an wouldn't that be price-fixing and anti-competitive?No. Study your history. VCR's were introduced at ~$1000. CD players were introduced at ~$1000. DVD players were introduced at ~$1000. Blu-ray and HD-DVD players were announced for introduction at ~$1000. Then, Toshiba wisely recognized that they were going to be toast unless they did something dramatic, and dropped their entry-level launch price to $499. Blu-ray vendors have rejected the notion that they have to race to the lowest price (which simply assures none of the vendors will recover their R&D investments) and has held the line, though now with multiple vendors and robust competition prices are falling (exactly as has happened with every other comparable format).
Either the bluray side will drop all support for the first gen machines because of the wasted resources, time and space, or they will have to continue wasting all of the above to keep the charade going.Machines incapable of supporting secondary video comprise less than 5% of the installed base today. Studios will not create content based on such a minority lowest common denominator. Recall your history, lots of DVD authoring features standard today also didn't work on 1G players.

Machines incapable of supporting secondary video comprise less than 5% of the installed base today. Studios will not create content based on such a minority lowest common denominator. Recall your history, lots of DVD authoring features standard today also didn't work on 1G players.

So I should just take my first generation Samsung player and throw it in the trash?

So I should just take my first generation Samsung player and throw it in the trash?Should all studios (both HD-DVD and BD) freeze all development and only support what 1st generation hardware can do, forever?

PiP is a user interface element which can be implemented different ways. All Blu-ray players can support PiP. Secondary video is a hardware feature. All Blu-ray players do not support secondary video (though all new players released after 6/07 will be required to).Do you ever get dizzy spinning so much? :)

Check me if I'm wrong, but PiP presentation as defined in the BD book requires a secondary stream, correct? Every BDA presentation shows it as such.

Look, this whole thing is getting silly. The team that made The Descent pulled a rabbit out of a hat, hats off to them, but it's not PiP. You might as well argue that all Blu-ray players support BD-Live right now, since you can author/record a virtual network transaction and play it back when someone presses a menu button...so long as the user doesn't know the difference, it's all good, right?

Machines incapable of supporting secondary video comprise less than 5% of the installed base today. Studios will not create content based on such a minority lowest common denominator. Recall your history, lots of DVD authoring features standard today also didn't work on 1G players.
Then how do you explain the Descent? Why didn't they just author the disc using PiP that utitlized a secondary video stream and let the consumers wait for players that support it?

Should all studios (both HD-DVD and BD) freeze all development and only support what 1st generation hardware can do, forever?

Forever?

We're not talking forever, here. We are talking about a very short period of time.

If I had been told in September of 2006 that the BD player I was about to buy would be unable to play discs released less than a year later, would that have been a factor in my purchase decision?

They aren't. The PS3 is retail $499, which is the lowest price of any complete HD-DVD player.
People routinely buy HD DVD players for $350 or thereabouts. Let me know where I can get a PS3 for the same price and you may, may have a point :). And they get a remote control and networking support/full interactivity day one for that price ;).

People routinely buy HD DVD players for $350 or thereabouts. Let me know where I can get a PS3 for the same price and you may, may have a point :). And they get a remote control and networking support/full interactivity day one for that price ;).
Plus, the A1/A2 can be used with existing Harmony (or other universal) remotes. :D

Sorry, Steve, I wrote months ago (as Amir recently referenced) that PiP could still be supported by non secondary-video enabled players using the method used by The Descent. We have an issue of definition here. PiP is a UI element.
- Talk
Really? So if I go and buy a TV that advertises PiP, I should be perfectly fine if I go home and find out that it has no ability to display another channel in a window and that I have to wait for the station to burn in the secondary picture in the video for me to experience that?

PiP is an industry standard term used for a product that can handle two independent streams. If you/BDA want to redefine that, good luck to you.

Forever?

We're not talking forever, here. We are talking about a very short period of time.

If I had been told in September of 2006 that the BD player I was about to buy would be unable to play discs released less than a year later, would that have been a factor in my purchase decision?No one has said discs wouldn't play.

"Forever" refers to all high-def movie production from now on forever into the future, not the time period from Sept 2006 to now.

Should HD-DVD studios only release discs where all features can be executed on "performance level 1" machines, whatever that turns out to be?

I've been saying for a year that no one should be buying these first generation machines unless they have money to burn and know what they are doing. I'm still advising friends not to buy.

.....Machines incapable of supporting secondary video comprise less than 5% of the installed base today. Studios will not create content based on such a minority lowest common denominator. Recall your history, lots of DVD authoring features standard today also didn't work on 1G players.

Please tell me if I am right or wrong on how I read your statement.

I believe you're saying that the PS3 supports secondary video and the other BD players do not. Is that correct?

People routinely buy HD DVD players for $350 or thereabouts. Let me know where I can get a PS3 for the same price and you may, may have a point :). And they get a remote control and networking support/full interactivity day one for that price ;).

Surely you aren't trying to compare a A2 as a superior product "value" at any price to the PS3. :eek: I know you like to come up with some fanciful ideas about the worth of HD-DVD products, but that goes beyond normal logic..

Using that kind of thinking you will be saying next that the Xbox 360 + Addon isn't worth it's price either. ($499 or $599 depending on the Xbox model).

b2b

No one has said discs wouldn't play.

"Forever" refers to all high-def movie production from now on forever into the future, not the time period from Sept 2006 to now.

Should HD-DVD studios only release discs where all features can be executed on "performance level 1" machines, whatever that turns out to be?

I've been saying for a year that no one should be buying these first generation machines unless they have money to burn and know what they are doing. I'm still advising friends not to buy.

No one has said they will play, either.

What I am saying is that it would be disturbing if the people producing BD players and content knew at the time the first generation players started being sold that in approximately one year there would be such a drastic change in requirements and capabilities that the first generation players would not be able to deal with.

I didn't have the benefit of your advice when I purchased first generation players in both formats. I may well have done so even with my current knowledge. But it would have been nice to have been able to make a more informed decision.

To be fair to Blu-ray, if not PiP what should they have called it then? Consumers might want to know they have the option of watching a talking head while viewing Descent. How should they be alerted to this fact? If one doesn't like it being described as PiP, what easily-understood substitute do you suggest?

No one has said discs wouldn't play.

"Forever" refers to all high-def movie production from now on forever into the future, not the time period from Sept 2006 to now.

Should HD-DVD studios only release discs where all features can be executed on "performance level 1" machines, whatever that turns out to be?

I've been saying for a year that no one should be buying these first generation machines unless they have money to burn and know what they are doing. I'm still advising friends not to buy.

It's pretty evident that buying a 1G product is a risky purchase with the poster boy for that being the 1G Toshiba players. Lots of folks seem to be dumping them and going to the A2, XA2 or just buying the Xb360 addon (if they already have the Xbox).

b2b

Surely you aren't trying to compare a A2 as a superior product "value" at any price to the PS3. :eek:
You are chasing the wrong argument. Talk wanted to put a spin out there that there is no lower cost HD DVD player than PS3. I showed that there was.

It's pretty evident that buying a 1G product is a risky purchase with the poster boy for that being the 1G Toshiba players. Lots of folks seem to be dumping them and going to the A2, XA2 or just buying the Xb360 addon (if they already have the Xbox).

b2b

No they're not. Unless by lots of people you mean a few dozen.

BTW I haven't kept up with this thread for a long time, so I never found out if you bought a player yet. PS3's are easy to find now, so I assume you have one of those?

You are chasing the wrong argument. Talk wanted to put a spin out there that there is no lower cost HD DVD player than PS3. I showed that there was.

Well if you believe in the economic theory that the "marketplace" has the final say on determining the value of a product, then the A2 @ $350 is all that it is worth, in spite of the $499 list price... ;)

b2b

No they're not. Unless by lots of people you mean a few dozen.

BTW I haven't kept up with this thread for a long time, so I never found out if you bought a player yet. PS3's are easy to find now, so I assume you have one of those?

If you want to ride shotgun, cover my back and have hearing protectors so your ears aren't damaged by all of the screeching noise when I try to get one in the house, let me know... :D

b2b

Well if you believe in the economic theory that the "marketplace" has the final say on determining the value of a product, then the A2 @ $350 is all that it is worth, in spite of the $499 list price... ;)

b2b
No one is discussing "economic theory" here. The discussion is much simpler than that. Fact is that it is a lot cheaper to get into HD optical players with HD DVD than BD. Stand-alone players cost less and if you have an Xbox 360, you practically get into for free. So no theory is needed.

But go ahead and put the above in your economic apparatus and see what pops out! :) You may not like the answer, seeing how PS3 doesn’t have enough value for you to own one ;).

BTW, the list price and purchase price of game consoles are usually one in the same as there is usually no retail margin in them. That is why they bundle other stuff with them. This is why you don’t want to compare their MSRP with that of other products.

If you want to ride shotgun, cover my back and have hearing protectors so your ears aren't damaged by all of the screeching noise when I try to get one in the house, let me know... :D

b2b


Hey there "early adopter" :) One can get a PS3 easily. Go to bestbuy.com and you'll see they have them in stock. You could have one in your home by Tuesday. Several other online retailers, as well as most B&M, have them now. There's plenty of supply. If lightenting hadn't stuck my home recently I would have bought one myself already.

Sorry, Steve, I wrote months ago (as Amir recently referenced) that PiP could still be supported by non secondary-video enabled players using the method used by The Descent. We have an issue of definition here. PiP is a UI element. Secondary video is a hardware capability. You're complaining about the lack of secondary video support on all Blu-ray players; I agree with your concern. My point all along has been that there are multiple ways to support PiP, and in the absence of secondary video support the fact that BD can support 50GB provides an alternative way to present PiP. It may not be as "elegant" a solution, but it does the job of providing the user an enhanced commentary track with video.

May I ask, by this definition of being a way to "support PiP", BD also supports triple PiP, or even quad PiP, etc. does it not, as long as the space is there?

Hey there "early adopter" :) One can get a PS3 easily. Go to bestbuy.com and you'll see they have them in stock. You could have one in your home by Tuesday. Several other online retailers, as well as most B&M, have them now. There's plenty of supply. If lightenting hadn't stuck my home recently I would have bought one myself already.

Hmm... Now that's interesting... I guess I will have to start laying out my plans for "Mission Impossible" sooner than I thought... :)

b2b

Hmm... Now that's interesting... I guess I will have to start laying out my plans for "Mission Impossible" sooner than I thought... :)

b2b


Yes, they've shown up at BestBuy.com. The 60GB model is also in the Northern California Fry's add this morning.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site//olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat104100050000&type=category

Still non available at the online sites for Amazon, Walmart, Target and Circuit City.

Availability looks to be improving though.

.....Machines incapable of supporting secondary video comprise less than 5% of the installed base today. Studios will not create content based on such a minority lowest common denominator. Recall your history, lots of DVD authoring features standard today also didn't work on 1G players.



So, basically, you're saying that the poor schmos who paid a grand or more for the 1st generation are ****ed. Viva la Blu-Ray! :rolleyes:

Well if you believe in the economic theory that the "marketplace" has the final say on determining the value of a product, then the A2 @ $350 is all that it is worth, in spite of the $499 list price... ;)

b2b

That's pretty funny b2b. Good groundwork for this year by the way. Let me take a practice run for you.

BD players cost more becuase they're better. If people didn't see the inherent value of the Pioneer BD player at $1,500 they wouldn't be buying them. HD-DVD is less expensive because it isn't as good. The lower prices on HD-DVD players show us that people aren't willing to spend more for them.

This is really good stuff. Can't wait to hear Andy Parsons say this in an interview this year at CES. ;)

Considering that the Xb360 addon is probably the #1 HD-DVD player out there, then $200 dollars is what a lot of people thought HD-DVD was worth... ;)

b2b
Good example of posts that should not get an answer from b2b. Clawing at feet of folks, wanting attention.

Go and get a PS3 man. That way, we can all discuss real stuff, not things that are meant just to agitate....

Please tell me if I am right or wrong on how I read your statement.

I believe you're saying that the PS3 supports secondary video and the other BD players do not. Is that correct?

Wouldn't it be ironic if the PS3 turns out to not be able to support all of these features? Much like the original PS2's DVD player turned out to be severely lacking? While the PS2 was an inexpensive DVD player when it was released, it was quickly surpassed in features and function.

I'll just wait and see I think ... I understand it has a network port, and is essentially a computer, so logic tells me that it should be able to handle it. But, considering, logic also told me it would be able to Scale 720p content to 1080i (and vice versa), I'll wait to see it to believe it.

For some reason, I still see the potential of a future statement the likes of, "The PS3 was a Gaming Console that included an Entry Level Blu-Ray Player, much the way the PS2 included an Entry Level DVD Player. It was never intended to perform like these new 3G/4G Stand-Alone Players." :(

Surely you aren't trying to compare a A2 as a superior product "value" at any price to the PS3. :eek: I know you like to come up with some fanciful ideas about the worth of HD-DVD products, but that goes beyond normal logic..

Using that kind of thinking you will be saying next that the Xbox 360 + Addon isn't worth it's price either. ($499 or $599 depending on the Xbox model).

b2b

But wait ... from an HD-DVD/Blu-Ray perspective, are there things that the A2 can do that the PS3 cannot do today? I believe that answer is yes.

Are there things the PS3 can do today that the A2 cannot? I don't think so?

Well if you believe in the economic theory that the "marketplace" has the final say on determining the value of a product, then the A2 @ $350 is all that it is worth, in spite of the $499 list price... ;)

b2b

For what it's worth, the "marketplace" that is eBay is showing that the $599 List Price PS3 is selling for below that. Now a ton below that, but considering that it was just released ... *shrug*

I saw several auctions end at $630 ... and that included a Game and/or Extra Controller. If you factor in TAX/etc, that shows a value of about $525-530, no?

$525 + 7.5% Tax + $60 Game = about $630, no? :confused:

Good example of posts that should not get an answer from b2b. Clawing at feet of folks, wanting attention.

Go and get a PS3 man. That way, we can all discuss real stuff, not things that are meant just to agitate....

"Got that "team" ? Don't talk to b2b..." :D

If rebuttal to the nonsensical suppositions placed forth by the HD-DVD "team" agenda is troubling, I can only suggest to examine the "agenda" for "real" merit.. :)

b2b

b3bonez -You, WickyWoo and YoYo should get together and form a club. You all think alike so you should be very happy talking about how superior the BR format is. Of course, you should own one, but what the hell. It's easier to talk about something you obviously don't know anything about, isn't it.

Good example of posts that should not get an answer from b2b. Clawing at feet of folks, wanting attention.

Go and get a PS3 man. That way, we can all discuss real stuff, not things that are meant just to agitate....


That is what the "Ignore" option is for -- trust me, it works miracles!

That is what the "Ignore" option is for -- trust me, it works miracles!
I know :). But then I would miss the perfect opportunity to make a point that he triggers. I don't think he realizes how often he invites us to do this. If he did, he would cut way down on his posts...

There's nothing about PIP that precludes 24p output with HD DVD.I think he was referring to the rumor that the HD-XA2 will disable PiP when it outputs at 1080p24.


The longing for 24fps multiples to eliminate judder and to provide a purer film experience implies you wouldn't be watching the extra stuff during that movie viewing session anyway.

Or i can just wait until I get a 120fps capable display and I can 2 x 60 and 5 x 24 at the same time.Okay, just curious but why is it that some HD DVD supporters can never admit that Blu-ray actually planned out their PiP specs pretty nicely? Heck, I can admit that HD DVD will have none of the problems of Blu-ray profiles and that every HD DVD player is capable of PiP decoding. At the same time though from what I can see the BDA actually put a lot of thought into PiP decoding. Besides the indications that Blu-ray PiP will support HD resolutions it also requires the main and secondary video streams to match. That will insure that PiP will play fine even when the video output is 1080p24. I am amazed that some HD DVD supporters write this advantage off by saying one of two things. The most common excuse is that no one who cares about PiP will want to watch it at 1080p24, which implies that people who do care about PiP don't mind judder. The other excuse is that we may someday have 1080p120 output from HD DVD player to display. Honestly can't we all just admit that both HD formats have certain advantages?


PiP is an industry standard term used for a product that can handle two independent streams. If you/BDA want to redefine that, good luck to you.So what about those DVDs that advertised PiP commentary? Honestly speaking I think that Talkstr8t should have been more accurate about what he said but than again he has his biases same as you. After all Amir you still won't tell us what the maximum video bit rate for PiP on Blu-ray is even though you were more than happy to tell us what the required persistent storage for BD-Video 1.0 was. I think you could easily tell us but that because it would help Blu-ray you have no interest in doing so.


Go and get a PS3 man. That way, we can all discuss real stuff, not things that are meant just to agitate....Well just to be point this out Amir but didn't you say that you would get a PS3 when they became available?

Well just to be point this out Amir but didn't you say that you would get a PS3 when they became available?
Absolutely. I should have one soon.

I know :). But then I would miss the perfect opportunity to make a point that he triggers. I don't think he realizes how often he invites us to do this. If he did, he would cut way down on his posts...

But isn't that like shooting fish in a barrel? :D

After all Amir you still won't tell us what the maximum video bit rate for PiP on Blu-ray is even though you were more than happy to tell us what the required persistent storage for BD-Video 1.0 was. I think you could easily tell us but that because it would help Blu-ray you have no interest in doing so.
Let me understand this. Talk says he is fearful of his company's agreement with BDA so can't tell us such detail, yet you expect me to provide it?

I can only disclose information to you that becomes public some other way. Until such time, I can't cross certain bridges.

Really, your beef should be with BDA. They give out all kinds of other spec when they think it helps them. But in this area, they go quiet. You just have to assume there is no good news here for them.

Let me understand this. Talk says he is fearful of his company's agreement with BDA so can't tell us such detail, yet you expect me to provide it?

I can only disclose information to you that becomes public some other way. Until such time, I can't cross certain bridges.

Really, your beef should be with BDA. They give out all kinds of other spec when they think it helps them. But in this area, they go quiet. You just have to assume there is no good news here for them.

Kind of like HDi on SoC and "Performance Level 2 & 3" for HD-DVD... :)

b2b

Really, your beef should be with BDA. They give out all kinds of other spec when they think it helps them. But in this area, they go quiet. You just have to assume there is no good news here for them.

No, rather you *want* us to assume. ;)

Let me ask this of you Amir, since it certainly won't be NDA'd.

What would you feel a good bitrate allowance to be? And in that context, do you feel Blu-ray rates favorably or unfavorably in comparison?

If you feel the second question is too close to NDA territory, then simply answering the first would be appreciated. And by the way, I'd appreciate if the answer came in a bit-rate metric, rather than layers and layers of qualifiers that end with the reader *understanding* (the same way we 'have' to assume) why HD DVD and VC-1 are superior. VC-1 can be used on Blu-ray as well.

Talking about bitrates here only... and what *you* feel a good allowance for PiP is.

No, rather you *want* us to assume. ;)

Let me ask this of you Amir, since it certainly won't be NDA'd.

What would you feel a good bitrate allowance to be? And in that context, do you feel Blu-ray rates favorably or unfavorably in comparison?

If you feel the second question is too close to NDA territory, then simply answering the first would be appreciated.
The max rate that HD DVD allocates for PiP is plenty from our experience. So if they match that, they should be in good territory. Advanced codecs handle talking heads quite well so they can get by with a much better ratio compared to MPEG-2 than would be otherwise.

Note that HD DVD also allows up to 15 mbit/sec for secondary streams fed from external storage. But this is not the rate I am talking about above.

The max rate that HD DVD allocates for PiP is plenty from our experience. So if they match that, they should be in good territory.

Ok... and, the implication prior is that you actually know whether they match it or they don't. So... do you know? And if so... do they match it?

No, rather you *want* us to assume. ;)
Oops, I missed this part :).

I don't want you to assume anything. Just look at what is in front of you. When BDA declined to put in these features in their spec, they thought if they got out into public hands, it would be deadly from PR point of view. After all, how could you talk about a format being better than another, when it clearly is not from feature perspective. So they invented these “profiles” as way to soften the blow. And then went on to dance around the topic in interviews and have Talk provide illusive answers here. There is no better example than this latest talk about PiP support. Or the fact that title after title has come out where the HD DVD version has interactivity features, yet the BD version does not.
It is amazing that the inquisitive AVS Forum community which tears apart every detail about any technology, has allowed this part of BD spec to be a dark secret. All in the name of protecting their favorite team (which is what I read into your reply). But this hurts the BD format as without consumer pressure, the CE companies in that camp are not liable to go and support these features. Look at the Pioneer player. It even has a networking jack yet it does not support BD Live features. If you all had joined me to push for more disclosure and knew months ago the limitations of this machine, maybe you could have succeeded in getting them to add BD-Live support.
So hold up Talk to his alias. Make him talk straight. Have him to go to BDA and get the specs to publish and do so NOW. Not months from now when more people wind up with more obsolete products. Until you do that, you are just putting your own head in the sand, with no help from me :).

b3bonez -You, WickyWoo and YoYo should get together and form a club. You all think alike so you should be very happy talking about how superior the BR format is. Of course, you should own one, but what the hell. It's easier to talk about something you obviously don't know anything about, isn't it. The whining bleats for attention that are coming from the I don't own one "but I slept in a Holiday Inn last night" club are starting to sound desperate.

How anyone can spend hours here a day and not actually own a player now that they are available for under $499 in either format is starting to be a credibility issue. :rolleyes:

I could see waiting , but for heavens sake the time for waiting is over!

You can now get a second generation HD DVD player or a big or small harddrive PS3 if you really wanted one.

Jump in and starting enjoying HD guys, it might improve your outlook in life.

Its made me much happier! :)

Okay, just curious but why is it that some HD DVD supporters can never admit that Blu-ray actually planned out their PiP specs pretty nicely?

Got me on ignore?

And incidentally, "HD DVD supporter" != "Blu Ray detractor".

I know :). But then I would miss the perfect opportunity to make a point that he triggers. I don't think he realizes how often he invites us to do this. If he did, he would cut way down on his posts... Just let those softballs keep on coming!!!

***Post from Amir***

Amir, you know what... I actually didn't read Talk's post, and I don't even care to tell you the truth. Is BD my side? Well, I guess so. If it loses, hell my life goes on, right? And I'll get an HD DVD player and that will be that. BUT, I do have a reflexsive reaction against FUD, which I'm going to be honest and say I feel you spread a lot of.

You have the opportunity to prove me wrong (on this singular point)... by just answering the question in post #1375. Because to be clear, this is what you've said.

* You yourself know the deal (or such is your implication), but you can't talk about it in public.

* BDA's being quiet on this... watch out! Must be baaaad.

* If BD's PiP bitrate allowance were to match HD DVD's, then it's all good.

Now - either it matches it or it doesn't. And supposedly, you know.

If it doesn't match it... well indeed, strike against the BDA. But if it *does*, then I just have to point to the whole 'we have to assume' thing and shrug my shoulders. And just say to myself: "It's Amir."

Sorry, Steve, I wrote months ago (as Amir recently referenced) that PiP could still be supported by non secondary-video enabled players using the method used by The Descent. We have an issue of definition here. PiP is a UI element. Secondary video is a hardware capability. You're complaining about the lack of secondary video support on all Blu-ray players; I agree with your concern. My point all along has been that there are multiple ways to support PiP, and in the absence of secondary video support the fact that BD can support 50GB provides an alternative way to present PiP. It may not be as "elegant" a solution, but it does the job of providing the user an enhanced commentary track with video.

Talk, I don't have a photographic memory, so if you say you've alluded to alternate methods to get "a picture in a picture" on the screen, then I'm sure you have. But you kinda ignored the context of my other post. We've all been talking about PiP data rates, what decks ship with the support, if PS3 could do it, the profile support required, impelmentation dates, etc...

Then you waltz in and say "all current decks can do PiP, as evidenced by The Descent".

So sure, technically, you are right, there is a picture within a picture. But you know darn well that in the given context of how it's recently been discussed here, that ain't what we're talking about. Not to mention Alex points out that all the BR documentation discusses PiP in the context of what you now have decided to call "secondary video stream support".

So if you want to technically be right, go ahead. But if you care about customer base, there's a significant potential one here that just sees this as "marketecture", not a real feature. And there's no way this lessons the confusion that the general populace has about the format, which you've already admitted is a problem.

I personally don't feel like I'm being played, and it sure feels that way when you pull stuff like this... as I get the distinct impression that unless it was "discovered", you weren't exactly going to be forthcoming.


I'm sorry if you feel I'm trying to hide something, but my posting record will bear out that I've been upfront about this.

In a Clinton-esque way, maybe so. And if you are OK with that, then so be it.

And it's also well-accepted that the current SoC solutions aren't sufficient for supporting HD-DVD, which adds cost and results in a PC-type solution. My guess is these costs appear to be comparable to the added Blu-ray OPU costs (especially given that Blu-ray OPU's are being produced in much higher volume today).

So be it. I was addressing the specific point that the poster made when he said there was nothing inherantly more expensive in BR than HD DVD. I think there is. But you are right that the BOM for HD DVD may also carry some parts that are currently more expensive than BR.

PiP is a user interface element which can be implemented different ways. All Blu-ray players can support PiP. Secondary video is a hardware feature. All Blu-ray players do not support secondary video (though all new players released after 6/07 will be required to).

- Talk

Would you care to show us where that distinction has been made prior to your making it in the last day or two? For instance, which does the BD-Video 1.1 profile spec require, "PiP Support" or "Secondary video stream hardware supprt"?

Machines incapable of supporting secondary video comprise less than 5% of the installed base today. Studios will not create content based on such a minority lowest common denominator. Recall your history, lots of DVD authoring features standard today also didn't work on 1G players.

Total # of decks? Perhaps.

Total # of decks for which movies are most regularly played on? Not so clear.

Somehow I suspect attach rate for movie discs on CE decks may be several times that for PS3's.

Amir, you know what... I actually didn't read Talk's post, and I don't even care to tell you the truth. Is BD my side? Well, I guess so. If it loses, hell my life goes on, right? And I'll get an HD DVD player and that will be that. BUT, I do have a reflexsive reaction against FUD, which I'm going to be honest and say I feel you spread a lot of.
Well, let me repeat what Talk is saying because it is important. He has said for months that BD was not behind in interactivity compared to HD DVD and that PiP was coming to BD to prove us all wrong. Then the lonely PiP title came and turns out it was a cheat. Now he wants to redefine PiP to mean something else. Can you please apply your FUD detector to that? Then I know to take your questions as genuine, or just cheerleading for BD format.

You have the opportunity to prove me wrong (on this singular point)... by just answering the question in post #1375. Because to be clear, this is what you've said.

* You yourself know the deal (or such is your implication), but you can't talk about it in public.
No, I have not told you this. I have told you that if data gets out about BD specifications in some way, I can then comment on it. I am not going to tell you if we do or do not poses such data. If this distinction is not clear to you, I suggest speaking to an attorney about corporate contract law.

* BDA's being quiet on this... watch out! Must be baaaad.
When I read stuff like this, then you lose credibility in my eye as to how genuine you are about seeking information as opposed to cheerleading. Please explain to me in a way I can understand, why it is just fine in your book that an organization that keeps talking about specs, doesn’t want to talk about this spec. I am all ears.
* If BD's PiP bitrate allowance were to match HD DVD's, then it's all good.
HD DVD spec is public. You asked me what is good. I said HD DVD rate is good. You can go look that up. I didn’t break any rules, yet answered your question. Then you ask me if some confidential spec from BDA matches that, I have to say “no comment.”

Now - either it matches it or it doesn't. And supposedly, you know.
And I can’t tell you if I do or do not know. I like my job more than satisfying your curiosity :).

If it doesn't match it... well indeed, strike against the BDA. But if it *does*, then I just have to point to the whole 'we have to assume' thing and shrug my shoulders. And just say to myself: "It's Amir."
It doesn’t matter if it does or does not match. Your Samsung can’t play the PiP whether its data rate is 0kbps, or 10000 Mbit/sec. The hardware simply is not there to decode the video! Ditto for any others lacking hardware decode.

The whining bleats for attention that are coming from the I don't own one "but I slept in a Holiday Inn last night" club are starting to sound desperate.

How anyone can spend hours here a day and not actually own a player now that they are available for under $499 in either format is starting to be a credibility issue. :rolleyes:

I could see waiting , but for heavens sake the time for waiting is over!

You can now get a second generation HD DVD player or a big or small harddrive PS3 if you really wanted one.

Jump in and starting enjoying HD guys, it might improve your outlook in life.

Its made me much happier! :)

That's a good one.. I guess I can add that to my merit badge... :)

"Whining" - "Bleating" - "HD-DVD foot clawer" :D

b2b

No one has said discs wouldn't play.

"Forever" refers to all high-def movie production from now on forever into the future, not the time period from Sept 2006 to now.

Should HD-DVD studios only release discs where all features can be executed on "performance level 1" machines, whatever that turns out to be?

I've been saying for a year that no one should be buying these first generation machines unless they have money to burn and know what they are doing. I'm still advising friends not to buy.

Can you please point me to something tells me what the 1st Gen decks ARE capable of doing, so I may decide what to buy?

Given that network jacks are absent on most, how about just telling me what ones will support "Secondary Video Stream Hardware" (not pPiP), so that I can make an educated decision. Thanks.

To be fair to Blu-ray, if not PiP what should they have called it then? Consumers might want to know they have the option of watching a talking head while viewing Descent. How should they be alerted to this fact? If one doesn't like it being described as PiP, what easily-understood substitute do you suggest?

This begs the question, what DOES the movie jacket for The Descent say?

***Amir's response***

You know what Amir... whatever.

I've asked the question in the insiders thread and hopefully it gets answered. I know that BD-J and BD-Live is where you want to keep this converation focused - but hey! - unfortunately I don't lose direction easily, and you're the one that brought me into this with your "we have to assume it's bad" talk - directed specifically at the video bitrate PiP allowance. As for lawyers... well, you don't know what my day job is, do you? (Oh man, what an Amir-esque reply on my part that is!)

Fast forwarding... ok, so you're saying that you can't say whether you know or not. You also say that you like your job. Well, then you must know, because if you didn't your job wouldn't be imperiled by saying you didn't, right? ;)

All I'm saying, is that the video bitrate allowance for BD had better be lower than HD DVD, because otherwise it's utterly shameless the way you pursue your agendas here.

May I ask, by this definition of being a way to "support PiP", BD also supports triple PiP, or even quad PiP, etc. does it not, as long as the space is there?

And I think it supports coloring mustaches in on the actors faces too!

The whining bleats for attention that are coming from the I don't own one "but I slept in a Holiday Inn last night" club are starting to sound desperate.

How anyone can spend hours here a day and not actually own a player now that they are available for under $499 in either format is starting to be a credibility issue. :rolleyes:

I could see waiting , but for heavens sake the time for waiting is over!

You can now get a second generation HD DVD player or a big or small harddrive PS3 if you really wanted one.

Jump in and starting enjoying HD guys, it might improve your outlook in life.

Its made me much happier! :)

That's a good one.. I guess I can add that to my merit badge... :)

"Whining" - "Bleating" - "HD-DVD foot clawer" :D

b2b

You know what Amir... whatever.

I've asked the question in the insiders thread and hopefully it gets answered. I know that BD-J and BD-Live is where you want to keep this converation focused - but hey! - unfortunately I don't lose direction easily, and you're the one that brought me into this with your "we have to assume it's bad" talk - directed specifically at the video bitrate PiP allowance. As for lawyers... well, you don't know what my day job is, do you? (Oh man, what an Amir-esque reply on my part that is!)

Fast forwarding... ok, so you're saying that you can't say whether you know or not. You also say that you like your job. Well, then you must know, because if you didn't your job wouldn't be imperiled by saying you didn't, right? ;)

All I'm saying, is that the video bitrate allowance for BD had better be lower than HD DVD, because otherwise it's utterly shameless the way you pursue your agendas here.

Why would it be a "shame" if BD video bitrate allowances are higher?

Infact, for the primary stream, they are higher. Clearly that has not produced better PQ on BR titles to date so I'm not sure what that jab is implying.

The issue with BR specs is that it is heavily compromised by all the different CE companies having their own agenda on how it should be implemented and then coming up with profiles to keep everyone happy. Anything they feel the competition has an advantage in, they keep that under NDA.

Can we see a proper list of all the BR players and how many can handle a true secondary stream and if it is spec compliant? Once you have your answer in the insiders thread, I'd immediately ask which player are spec compliant. I think we'd all like that answer, wouldn't we?

As for BD-J/BD-Live, Sun should have provided to complete BD-Live hardware requirements to the BD board, which I'll credit them on doing. From there, the CE's should have made that their baseline for players and ship out ALL players to be BD-Live complaint. At this point, if the software is lagging behind they can always update the firmware for title compatiablity and no one is left behind. For player pushing over 1k, I think people atleast deserve that, don't you?

Robert... I'm talking about PiP bitrate allowances, and that's what Amir was talking about when he said that 'we should assume something bad.' So... if I didn't let Amir take me onto BD-J, I'm not going to let you derail me either. ;)

EDIT: And an answer to the question has come, ironically from Ben:

[BD] Spec mandates support for much higher rates, which is complex to implement, which is why it isn't implemented.

HD DVD mandates a reasonable standard for PIP *for* picture-in-picture use, which is easier to implement, allowing us to make it mandatory.

The technology you can deliver is better than the technology you can't, no matter how compelling the spec is on paper :).

So, BD allows for higher PiP bitrates (and Amir you knew that).

I'll let the conversation go back to BD-J now and why it will destroy us.

HD-DVD supporters love to talk about PiP until the subject turns to CE players with 24p output. Then suddenly PiP isn't important anymore. :)


Well BD players loved to brag about Java support...where's that gotten them?

They also love to brag about space, but when most are relased on BD25, while hddvd is HD30, this is not an issue.

For me, the issue is this: As my colection of both formats increases, I have yet to see one BD that looks as good or better then HD DVD.

EDIT: And an answer to the question has come, ironically from Ben:



So, BD allows for higher PiP bitrates. Well... no surprise... #1380 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9378328&&#post9378328)



Ofcourse, we'll now wait for an exact number from a BR insider and which players are compatiable, right? :)

And as to why BD-J/BD-Live are relevant, I'm under the impression that with BD-J compliance PiP spec isn't mandatory but with BD-Live, the player must also be PiP compatiable, thus the tie in. If I'm wrong, I'm sure Bill/Talk will be happy to correct me!

So basically if we got out our pitch forks and marched demanding full BD-Live spec compliant players, we'd be guaranteed of full PiP compliance along with it and we'd see more titles using it. I'm not sure how many content companies want the take the "Descent" path to provide PiP.

Ofcourse, we'll now wait for an exact number from a BR insider and which players are compatiable, right? :)

I think the "bad news" might be in reference to that.......and as to why BD-J/BD-Live are elevant, I'm under the impression that with BD-J compliance PiP spec isn't mandatory but with BD-Live, the player must also me PiP compatiable, thus the tie in. If I'm wrong, I'm sure Bill/Talk will be happy to correct me!

Yeah, I have no doubt only the PS3 is compatible right now, but then again that's not what I was discussing. Throw the Samsung's in the trash, hell I don't care. Again, I'm not here for a DBD-J discussion. Or even a BD vs HD DVD discussion.

I don't understand why people have to point to everything else *other* than the topic when a *singular* issue is being discussed (in this case max bitrate allowances for PiP). And the reason it was being discussed, is because an incorrect conclusion was insinuated... with the wording almost forced on the reader... by an insider - that's what makes this one 'inconsequential' issue different and relevent to harp on.

Got me on ignore?

And incidentally, "HD DVD supporter" != "Blu Ray detractor".I wasn't aiming that comment at you but at certain other posters who have said that it doesn't really matter if the primary and secondary video have the same frame rate. Also I guess I should have used some other term than "some HD DVD supporters" since I certainly didn't intend for that to be taken as a general remark.

Robert... I'm talking about PiP bitrate allowances, and that's what Amir was talking about when he said that 'we should assume something bad.' So... if I didn't let Amir take me onto BD-J, I'm not going to let you derail me either. ;)

EDIT: And an answer to the question has come, ironically from Ben:



So, BD allows for higher PiP bitrates (and Amir you knew that).

I'll let the conversation go back to BD-J now and why it will destroy us.

You know, that whole exchange was pretty silly. For some reason, you acted as though you were entitled to demand answers from a MS VP about his oppositions technical details. And when he continuously refused to say ANYTHING (even whether he knew what the specs were,) you started to draw specious implications from what he did say. Finally, you found a quote that contradicted the position you were trying to force on him, and brought it forward so you could have your "a ha!" moment and imply he was being deceptive.

Pretty weak.

Okay, just curious but why is it that some HD DVD supporters can never admit that Blu-ray actually planned out their PiP specs pretty nicely?
That the spec wasn't deployable in 1st gen players is a pretty good definition of NOT planned out pretty nicely!

EDIT: And an answer to the question has come, ironically from Ben:

So, BD allows for higher PiP bitrates (and Amir you knew that).

Bear in mind Amir presumably knows the actual numbers, so can't comment on it.

I have a lot more areas of ignorance I can wallow around in, empowering my rampant speculation.

I've never seen the BDA spec. I'm just sharing scuttlebutt from other content authors.

That the spec wasn't deployable in 1st gen players is a pretty good definition of NOT planned out pretty nicely!

Speaking of "poor planning", I still am dumbfounded at HD-DVD only supporting 30mbps for their data rate. I can understand the 30GB limitation because of the optical physics involved with retaining the same depth of the data layer as DVD. But with 30mbps, all I can do is shake my head and wonder "what were they thinking ??".

b2b

Speaking of "poor planning", I still am dumbfounded at HD-DVD only supporting 30mbps for their data rate. I can understand the 30GB limitation because of the optical physics involved with retaining the same depth of the data layer as DVD. But with 30mbps, all I can do is shake my head and wonder "what were they thinking ??".

b2b


See this is where it sucks that you don't actually own the product to make these calls :(

Clearly with advanced codecs such as VC-1 this limitation is fine. Unless all of us has bad eyes and are seeing a crappy picture and you without any first hand experience know better? I'm sure someone didn't throw a dart on a board to arrive at the number. Whether a HD DVD insider is willing to take the time explain the details to someone who has 0 interest in the format, remains to be seen :)

Speaking of "poor planning", I still am dumbfounded at HD-DVD only supporting 30mbps for their data rate. I can understand the 30GB limitation because of the optical physics involved with retaining the same depth of the data layer as DVD. But with 30mbps, all I can do is shake my head and wonder "what were they thinking ??".

b2b
They were thinking like good engineers. They trippled the DVD data rate (10 Mbit/sec), then they prescribed advanced codecs which gain you another 2X over MPEG-2. Net, net, that is 6X the horsepower of DVD which is ample for getting excellent audio and picture.

Now, if your target is MPEG-2 and nothing but MPEG-2, then you have to kill yourself (as in a format that is very hard to manufacture) to get 6X. And here, BD actually under delivers becuase it does not have 60 mbit/sec. Now I ask you, what were they thinking? :D

I wasn't aiming that comment at you but at certain other posters who have said that it doesn't really matter if the primary and secondary video have the same frame rate. Also I guess I should have used some other term than "some HD DVD supporters" since I certainly didn't intend for that to be taken as a general remark.

I'm a HD DVD supporter (and trying to be a BR supporter as well). I've openly agreed that the BR 24p plan was better thought out. I've also questioned where HD DVD's plan is.

Ergo, my case answers your question.

Speaking of "poor planning", I still am dumbfounded at HD-DVD only supporting 30mbps for their data rate. I can understand the 30GB limitation because of the optical physics involved with retaining the same depth of the data layer as DVD. But with 30mbps, all I can do is shake my head and wonder "what were they thinking ??".

b2b

Well b2b, it goes hand in hand with the lower storage requirements of VC1. They're reducing storage size and bit rate while increasing picture quality with a modern codec. The size reduction goes hand in hand with the bit rate reduction.

Absolutely. I should have one soon.That is good to hear and if you have any interest in games you should try Resistance.


Let me understand this. Talk says he is fearful of his company's agreement with BDA so can't tell us such detail, yet you expect me to provide it?I mean no offense but when you knew something negative about Blu-ray you didn't really seem to care whether or not that info was public. Honestly I actually like knowing that the minimum requirement for BD-Video 1.0 was 64 KB but to be blunt that wasn't public info until you posted it. To be fair though maybe you are under NDA when it comes to the Blu-ray specs.


Really, your beef should be with BDA. They give out all kinds of other spec when they think it helps them. But in this area, they go quiet. You just have to assume there is no good news here for them.Come now Amir there are many posts made by other insiders that indicate that Blu-ray has a higher supported bit rate for PiP than HD DVD. In fact you even argued with Talkstr8t over whether or not HD PiP would be wanted by consumers which I can't imagine was done simply for the heck of it. Finally only an hour and a half after you post this Ben says that the PiP specs for Blu-ray have a much higher rate than HD DVD.


Finally, you found a quote that contradicted the position you were trying to force on him, and brought it forward so you could have your "a ha!" moment and imply he was being deceptive.Obviously xbdestroya was trying to bait Amir but you have to admit that Amir made a negative comment that he shouldn't have.


That the spec wasn't deployable in 1st gen players is a pretty good definition of NOT planned out pretty nicely!I certainly agree that those who want PiP and bought Blu-ray players that don't support it certainly won't be happy about that. Still in the long term it looks like Blu-ray has the better PiP specs and to me that is important.

Well b2b, it goes hand in hand with the lower storage requirements of VC1. They're reducing storage size and bit rate while increasing picture quality with a modern codec. The size reduction goes hand in hand with the bit rate reduction.

That sounds like great news for BD25 then. If Kong is great in 30GB then almost everything else can be done on BD25 then. ;)

b2b

That sounds like great news for BD25 then. If Kong is great in 30GB then almost everything else can be done on BD25 then. ;)

b2b
If you could only get them to use advanced codecs and spend a couple of weeks encoding rather than MPEG-2 and two days. If you only could...

That sounds like great news for BD25 then. If Kong is great in 30GB then almost everything else can be done on BD25 then. ;)

b2b

Yes, I agree completely. VC1 makes BD25 much more practical. Of course BD seems to be a mostly MPEG2 focused format. I think it has something to do with investments Sony has made in hardware based MPEG2 encoders.

But you know on the other hand, I'm all about size, so I would simply be embarrased to buy a disc that was smaller. ;)

I haven't noticed any talk about the problem some BD players are having with The Descent. Did I miss that?

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/06/the-descent-giving-fits-to-bd-java-less-blu-ray-players/

Obviously xbdestroya was trying to bait Amir but you have to admit that Amir made a negative comment that he shouldn't have.


I'm sorry, but I don't admit that. Amir made a well measured comment regarding the secrecy of BD specs, and the logical inference one can draw from that. People read too much into it, and in fact, drew the wrong conclusion from it. People wanted Amir to say more than what he was saying just so they could say he went too far. And it was kind of pointless, except to the extent people are playing the "score points on Amir" game.

I'm sorry, but I don't admit that. Amir made a well measured comment regarding the secrecy of BD specs, and the logical inference one can draw from that.

Well.. insomuch as he basically implied: Any logical person will conclude BD is hiding negative bitrate information.

People read too much into it, and in fact, drew the wrong conclusion from it.

What was that wrong conclusion?

People wanted Amir to say more than what he was saying just so they could say he went too far. And it was kind of pointless, except to the extent people are playing the "score points on Amir" game.

The fact is, Amir only speaks up about Blu-ray when there's something negative to say. You know what? Fair enough... but don't go implying something negative about Blu-ray as well, especially when you yourself actually know the facts on the ground, and especially when they run counter to your implications.

I didn't want Amir to say 'more than he was saying.' What he had said was quite enough, and the only thing I personally: a) took issue with, and b) wished to discuss.


Obviously xbdestroya was trying to bait Amir but you have to admit that Amir made a negative comment that he shouldn't have.

I understand your desire to reach amicable undestandings/resolutions with folk... but baiting Amir I was definitely not. I asked a question, and the answer was that if BD were to match HD DVDs bitrate, it would be ok. This all spoken in the hypothetical (when Amir sure as hell knows from the start), and after insinuating BD was hiding - what a 'logical' person would naturally assume - terrible bitrate information. Skogan I guess probably still will give Amir the benefit of the doubt that Amir in fact does not know these numbers; that's Skogan.

To me, that people 'keep it clean' is of the utmost importance, and Amir is too often willing to throw some mud... sure, it's just a little here and there, no harm done, right? But it adds up.

Agreed ... plus, it seems that the majority of the components in the PS3 were available and ready when the Xbox 360 launched. They delayed that 'cutting edge' technology release another year roughly to be able to include Blu-Ray. IMO, that's why games, side-by-side, are roughly the same.
This isn't true. Developer kits were only widely available in early 2006, well less than a year before release and probably much less lead time than Xbox 360 developers had.
Third party titles are almost all but identicalThat's because most third-party titles today are cross-platform, with the Xbox 360 having been the lead platform. Few if any of these are going to have much PS3 optimization.
Sony, frankly, can't release games in 1080p unless they also have the game in a 720p or 1080i version on the same disc (Thank goodness for BD50!- :rolleyes: ). If they tried that, any game in 1080p is going to show up at 480p (no scaler) on most HDTV's (since most in the market are non-1080p), correct?Not correct. Most TV's (and probably every new HDTV) can accept 1080 and internally scale to 720 for display. Only early 720 RPTV's didn't routinely accept 1080 input.

Well.. insomuch as he basically implied: Any logical person will conclude BD is hiding negative bitrate information.
What bitrate? I never said a word about bitrate. The first person who brought up the topic was Richard after which, you took the horse and ran with it. What I said BDA was hiding was the profiles for the players. Things like secondary video decoders, amount of peristent storage, what exactly is mandated in BD-Live, etc. These are features, not bit rates.

The fact is, Amir only speaks up about Blu-ray when there's something negative to say.
And Talk does what? Paidgeek? Penton? It is not my job to help you guys with your arguments. You have to do your own homework I am afraid. The day a bunch of BD insiders come here singing the praises of HD DVD, is the day I reciprocate.

You know what? Fair enough... but don't go implying something negative about Blu-ray as well, especially when you yourself actually know the facts on the ground, and especially when they run counter to your implications.
For over a year I have been saying there is something wrong here. People like you attacked me saying unless you can prove it beyond the shadow of doubt, I don't believe it, you are spreading fud, etc. Now we have the most concrete proof of everything I have been talking about. And you come out in the middle the conversation, and cry FUD? At least come up to speed on the conversation before jumping in.

To me, that people 'keep it clean' is of the utmost importance, and Amir is too often willing to throw some mud... sure, it's just a little here and there, no harm done, right? But it adds up.
Again, read up on the conversation and then tell me who is throwing mud. The guy who is telling you PiP hardware is in your imagination, and that the word means something new, or the person who has been trying to tell you the reality for over a year. Yes, I realize you have not been around here that long but because of that, you want to hang loose a bit before making such accusations.

(since most in the market are non-1080p), correct?
Not correct. Most TV's (and probably every new HDTV) can accept 1080 and internally scale to 720 for display. Only early 720 RPTV's didn't routinely accept 1080 input.
Actually "most" TVs on the market *cannot* do 1080p, which is what he is talking about.

I notice in your response you left the "1080" absent an "i" or a "p" so that your answer could be "accurate"...

They were thinking like good engineers. They trippled the DVD data rate (10 Mbit/sec), then they prescribed advanced codecs which gain you another 2X over MPEG-2. Net, net, that is 6X the horsepower of DVD which is ample for getting excellent audio and picture.

Now, if your target is MPEG-2 and nothing but MPEG-2, then you have to kill yourself (as in a format that is very hard to manufacture) to get 6X. And here, BD actually under delivers becuase it does not have 60 mbit/sec. Now I ask you, what were they thinking? :D

You're the only person I have ever seen who can take reality and bend it to suit whatever argument (no matter how illogical) you are espousing.

Time for the chart... :)

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


VC-1 & H.264 fit into the Blu-Ray area just like they do for HD-DVD. ;)

Do you hate HW efficiency because it doesn't make SW nearly as important ??

b2b

Do you hate HW efficiency because it doesn't make SW nearly as important ??

b2b
The only hardware I hate is the one that is difficult to manufacture. Thousands of companies have gone out of business because this one factor. And thousands will follow them.

Would I take HD DVD at double the data rate? Sure. Would I take the higher data rate and accept all the grief that BD brings? No way. Instead, I much rather use our strength in video compression and software to make a system that is superior in every respect. Software requires no capital equipment. It scales wonderfully as when we make VC-1 10%, everyone can benefit the next day, not wait for all new machinery to be installed, etc. And of course, we have already proven this with our track record with VC-1.

Anyone who thinks of technology as hardware alone, is living in the past. This is why I, as an Electrical Engineer and a guy who grew up designing hardware, love managing and running software projects. Software is turning out to be the key to making other things great.

[don’t look but you are giving me yet another chance to make new points while you rehash your old arguments ;) :)]

What bitrate? I never said a word about bitrate. The first person who brought up the topic was Richard after which, you took the horse and ran with it. What I said BDA was hiding was the profiles for the players. Things like secondary video decoders, amount of peristent storage, what exactly is mandated in BD-Live, etc. These are features, not bit rates.

Richard asked you a question, and you gave an answer that essentially amounted to: Well, I can't say Richard, but if I were you... I think that I'd be worried.

His question, as you stated, was about bitrate. It certanly seemed that you understood that as well in your initial response to my initial question to you.

And Talk does what? Paidgeek? Penton? It is not my job to help you guys with your arguments. You have to do your own homework I am afraid. The day a bunch of BD insiders come here singing the praises of HD DVD, is the day I reciprocate.

I remember you saying recently, when asked by a member why you never correct rdjam and some other posters when they say something incorrect, that you feel it's not your place to 'meddle.' Well... what in the world do I have to do with Talk, Paidgeeks, and Pentons arguments? Though I will say the majority of their time is spent discussing Blu-ray, whereas... the majority of your time is spent discussing... well, seemingly Blu-ray. So no I don't see them singing the praises of HD DVD, but for what it's worth (and maybe I don't read enough of their posts), I don't see them knocking HD DVD.

For over a year I have been saying there is something wrong here. People like you attacked me saying unless you can prove it beyond the shadow of doubt, I don't believe it, you are spreading fud, etc. Now we have the most concrete proof of everything I have been talking about. And you come out in the middle the conversation, and cry FUD? At least come up to speed on the conversation before jumping in.

I don't even know what you're talking about. But what I'm talking about, I think I've made quite clear. And that's your insinuation that Blu-ray was lacking in terms of PiP birate allowance.

Again, read up on the conversation and then tell me who is throwing mud. The guy who is telling you PiP hardware is in your imagination, and that the word means something new, or the person who has been trying to tell you the reality for over a year. Yes, I realize you have not been around here that long but because of that, you want to hang loose a bit before making such accusations.

Is the reality that BD50 is science fiction? I mean, I remember hearing that over the past year...

I think you're taking my pursuit of your comments as giving Talk a free pass on PiP. Well, it's not. BD has no *real* PiP right now in my opinion. But Amir, I've just heard too many of your (at times quite suspect) arguments paroted around this forum for me to let another slide, whereas when I hear people going around saying that BD has 'real' PiP right now, then I'll start to wonder about that too. But right now, no one's doing that.

Amir,
I guess everyone now understand that things are software driven. But that doesn't take away the importance of hardware (even more so with SoCs). You are going to run your software on that hardware platform. If that wasn't the case, we would be taking advantage of Vista on all our old PC's, but we can't, right? So, they both go hand in hand. Would you like to run Vista on 733MHz Pentium III?

Point being, if the hardware specs are higher, you can achieve even better results with software. Would you agree with that? The better hardware platform will be able to edge ahead sooner or later. Besides, if I understand correctly, HDi puts higher demands on (internal) memory bandwidth than BD-J. Isn't that correct? Similarly, full 1080p secondary stream decoding would put more demand on BD implementation. As I have always said, there are trade-offs on both formats.

By the way, as far as software is concerned, even Sony is going to release AVC (which I believe is considered advanced codec) encoded titles on and after Jan 30, so there goes that final argument against Blu-ray. Of course, that is a future promise from Sony! You don't have to believe that! :)

This week's New Yorker has an article regarding the future of Hollywood.
It seems Hollywood has run into financial trouble...panic...could enter a death spiral. As for what the studio should do. The CEO of Warner Bros. Entertainment Barry Meyer quote saying " Digital distribution is easy,ubiguitous, and inexpensive," Meyers took a deep breath, "We have to adapt, or we'll become dinosaurs."

It seems to me HD DVD/Bluray has a short time window to success. It is more like a transition time. I guess whatever format that could better bridge to the "future" might have a better chance to succeed.


BTW, this article also said something nice about the experience from a Toshiba HD DVD player playing "The Searchers" and "Million Dollar Baby" in an upscale HT.

......By the way, as far as software is concerned, even Sony is going to release AVC (which I believe is considered advanced codec) encoded titles on and after Jan 30, so there goes that final argument against Blu-ray. Of course, that is a future promise from Sony! You don't have to believe that! :)

Do you have any title names that Sony will release in AVC? Very curious to hear about this.

Do you have any title names that Sony will release in AVC? Very curious to hear about this.Paidgeek said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9372705&&#post9372705) the first will be "Open Season". Google search showed that to be on Jan 30th (please double check the date).

The fact that this went unnoticed shows that codecs are not important anymore! :)

You're the only person I have ever seen who can take reality and bend it to suit whatever argument (no matter how illogical) you are espousing.


VC-1 & H.264 fit into the Blu-Ray area just like they do for HD-DVD. ;)

Do you hate HW efficiency because it doesn't make SW nearly as important ??

b2b

Again with the chart? ;)

Here's the thing b2b, let's look at the percentage of titles using VC-1 & H.264 on BD. Oops, not very many there.

If there were no HD-DVD, Sony would be pushing poorly encoded MPEG2 BD25 titles on us right and left, and we'd have no choice. Even with the competition from VC1 and HD-DVD they're making a half hearted effort to compete. What was Sonys competitive response? BD50 MPEG2.

Paidgeek said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9372705&&#post9372705) the first will be "Open Season". Google search showed that to be on Jan 30th (please double check the date).

The fact that this went unnoticed shows that codecs are not important anymore! :)

Thanks kdragon. So Sony is pulling out AVC on an animation title first. I'll be curious to see the reviews. They should be good. Animation titles seem to do very well for PQ.

To everyone unsure about BD players profiles, how about this when we talk to our friends who ask for advice:

1. If PiP is important, don't buy any standalone until June. Go with PS3, but there is no confirmation from Sony yet.

2. If network based advanced interactivity is important, don't buy any current standalone. Wait for one that advertises itself as BD-Live capable , don't buy any standalone. You can buy a PS3, but there is no confirmation from Sony yet.

3. If both PiP and network features are not important to you, then buy a standalone with an understanding that future discs may or may not play on these players.

How about that? I don't think it is going to get any clearer than that until June.

EDIT: This is what I have been telling my friends. Most are waiting for prices to go down! A couple of them (non-gamers) are buying PS3 soon. I now really hope PS3 is/becomes BD-Live compatible! :)

Thanks kdragon. So Sony is pulling out AVC on an animation title first. I'll be curious to see the reviews. They should be good. Animation titles seem to do very well for PQ.I will actually buy this title for my son. They may have selected this because of it being an animation; not to take risk with their first AVC encode. Or, it may just be a coincidence. You should ask this in the Insiders thread.

Amir,
I guess everyone now understand that things are software driven. But that doesn't take away the importance of hardware (even more so with SoCs). You are going to run your software on that hardware platform. If that wasn't the case, we would be taking advantage of Vista on all our old PC's, but we can't, right? So, they both go hand in hand. Would you like to run Vista on 733MHz Pentium III?
Indeed, HD DVD is powerful hardware. It uses advanced blue laser technology that only became available last year. It uses the most sophisticated PRML encoding on disc, which is a clear step ahead of the algorithm used on BD discs (they could not use PRML due to Toshiba patents).

So the question is not running on 733 Mhz. The question is, why should I pass on Core 2 duo running at say, 3 Ghz, instead opt for water cooled overclocked 3.5 Ghz? That extra bit of performance doesn't do one much good compared to the grief and reliability hassles. Some 150 HD DVD titles prove this point. That we are delivering all the performance people expect in HD formats. Indeed, we delivered better performance than the other guy's overclocked machine.

Point being, if the hardware specs are higher, you can achieve even better results with software. Would you agree with that?
No argument. Give me better specs that can be manufactured at the same cost as the other and I will switch in a heartbeat. Problem is, after some 8 years of research, BD is still struggling to get yields and improve cycle time.

The better hardware platform will be able to edge ahead sooner or later.
I don't know why when it comes to BD, people expect time to magically solve things. Again, many companies have gone out of business because hardware did not fix itself.

Besides, if I understand correctly, HDi puts higher demands on (internal) memory bandwidth than BD-J. Isn't that correct?
Nope, it is not correct. You have to consider the fact that BD-J basically is not in use. So its performance profile is totally unknown. In contrast, we have two generation of products plus Xbox and PCs executing HDi day in and day out. And we have a ton of titles out there. Until BD-J is broadly adopted and we can see its performance on various hardware, one cannot compare these two technologies.

By the way, as far as software is concerned, even Sony is going to release AVC (which I believe is considered advanced codec) encoded titles on and after Jan 30, so there goes that final argument against Blu-ray. Of course, that is a future promise from Sony! You don't have to believe that! :)
Well, they are still going to rely on hardware encoders which are limited by what they can do. One day they will see the benefit of a software encoder which can improve daily. Until then….

To everyone unsure about BD players profiles, how about this when we talk to our friends who ask for advice:

1. If PiP is important, don't buy any standalone until June. Go with PS3, but there is no confirmation from Sony yet.

2. If network based advanced interactivity is important, don't buy any current standalone. Wait for one that advertises itself as BD-Live capable , don't buy any standalone. You can buy a PS3, but there is no confirmation from Sony yet.

3. If both PiP and network features are not important to you, then buy a standalone with an understanding that future discs may or may not play on these players.

How about that? I don't think it is going to get any clearer than that until June.

For me it's much simpler kdragon.

1. If they own an Xbox360 I advise them to buy the add-on. It's low cost and they can decide how they like the format without a big expense.

2. If they don't own the Xbox360 I recommend the HD-A2 if they are looking to keep their cost down.

3. If they are in the market for a high end player, I recommend the XA2. Great feature set and ReonVX for high quality SD DVD playback.

Plus with the free HD-DVD movies these are great deals. :)

...whereas when I hear people going around saying that BD has 'real' PiP right now, then I'll start to wonder about that too. But right now, no one's doing that.

Well, if you are looking for the EXACT PHRASE "real PiP", you've probably left yourself a good out.

However, before the slight-of-hand that is The Descent Trick was exposed, nobody here really expected that we needed to qualify PiP as being real (or fake?), thus when Talk said THIS (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9345564&&#post9345564):

PiP is available on all Blu-ray players (see The Descent)...

I think it fits your criteria in most reasonable people's minds, no?

Again with the chart? ;)

Here's the thing b2b, let's look at the percentage of titles using VC-1 & H.264 on BD. Oops, not very many there.

If there were no HD-DVD, Sony would be pushing poorly encoded MPEG2 BD25 titles on us right and left, and we'd have no choice. Even with the competition from VC1 and HD-DVD they're making a half hearted effort to compete. What was Sonys competitive response? BD50 MPEG2.

Exactly! IF sony had their way, they'd push crap on us and we'd have no choice. Again I'll say it...Blu Ray fans OWE HD DVD for pushing studios using BD to do a better job.

Lately I have been buying up BD exclusive titles in hopes of finding ONE that matches my HDDVD collection....None so far have.

So the only LOGICAL conclusion is that BOTH platforms are cabable of delivering quality HD content with the space they each have. HDDVD is the only one choosing to put the effort into doing so. I have Kingdom of Heaven on the way...if I am not impressed with that then, what else can I conclude except that when given the choice I'll go with HD DVD.

Again with the chart? ;)

Here's the thing b2b, let's look at the percentage of titles using VC-1 & H.264 on BD. Oops, not very many there.

If there were no HD-DVD, Sony would be pushing poorly encoded MPEG2 BD25 titles on us right and left, and we'd have no choice. Even with the competition from VC1 and HD-DVD they're making a half hearted effort to compete. What was Sonys competitive response? BD50 MPEG2.

Every once in a while when the old "smaller and slower" is better than "bigger and faster" argument gets spun out from the HD-DVD side I like to put a "visual perspective" on what the real differences between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are.

The simple fact is that Blu-Ray offers the most comprehensive choice for content producers to take advantage of. Sometimes the best "choice" is the one that doesn't force you into making other "choices" you would otherwise rather not have to make. Like choosing between lossless audio cutting into the quality of the video (Kong doesn't have lossless now does it ?).

A content producer can use almost any combination of codec choice for video/audio at BD-50GB and have little concern for media limitations, just so long as they don't go beyond the bitrate maximum (> 48mbps). It's like having money in the bank, the more you have, the better off you are. :)

b2b

The simple fact is that Blu-Ray offers the most comprehensive choice for content producers to take advantage of. Sometimes the best "choice" is the one that doesn't force you into making other "choices" you would otherwise rather not have to make. Like choosing between lossless audio cutting into the quality of the video (Kong doesn't have lossless now does it ?).
Or like choosing to go with BD-25 because you can't get BD-50 supply? Yes, choices indeed. How easy do you think it is for a BD content company to swallow the BD-25 and put out a product with less capacity than HD DVD? How about passing on interactivity? How easy is that for say, Disney?

As long as you live in fantasy land, yes you are right. When you come down to real world, the situation is very different on the ground.

Indeed, HD DVD is powerful hardware. It uses advanced blue laser technology that only became available last year. PC based, yes. I agree, it is powerful. Probably, it was almost mandatory to use PC based platform because there was no time to optimize HDi SoC (and BD-J on Samsung). Or may be no SoC did or does fully support HDi; I don't know. I think, a particular vocal HD-DVD insider is hiding something from us! :) Just kidding.

Just so that it is clear, this is a non-issue to me. It will happen when it happens since SoC's are targeting both HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Hardware, as in player platform is going to be a wash. Format specs, on the other hand are not.

It uses the most sophisticated PRML encoding on disc, which is a clear step ahead of the algorithm used on BD discs (they could not use PRML due to Toshiba patents). Blu-ray uses different approach. It is not necessary to use PRML, you know! Pre and post equalization approach also works. In fact, it is working. PRML is not the only method for increasing reliability. Blu-ray also doesn't have to worry about tilt correction. As far as I know, focus tracking is not as difficult as tilt correction. In my opinion, as far as optical front-end of both HD-DVD and Blu-ray is concerned, it is a wash (with slight advantage for Blu-ray because of track pitch). Anyway, that is OT.

So the question is not running on 733 Mhz. The question is, why should I pass on Core 2 duo running at say, 3 Ghz, instead opt for water cooled overclocked 3.5 Ghz? That extra bit of performance doesn't do one much good compared to the grief and reliability hassles. Some 150 HD DVD titles prove this point. That we are delivering all the performance people expect in HD formats. Indeed, we delivered better performance than the other guy's overclocked machine.Again, it is relative. I have been buying the latest and greatest graphics cards in the past in order to gain a couple of fps in games compared to existing "good enough" cards. I guess it has to do with the mentality. Then I stopped doing that. You know what? Because my graphics card was ahead of the curve, it is now able to play the games that just started to utilize the advanced features, and it has jumped ahead of the then "good enough" cards! In other words, the cards that showed the fps within 1 or 2 fps of my then cutting-edge card are now lagging far behind because games are now utilizing the card's feature to the fullest (not even to the fullest).
Blu-ray is similar.


No argument. Give me better specs that can be manufactured at the same cost as the other and I will switch in a heartbeat. Problem is, after some 8 years of research, BD is still struggling to get yields and improve cycle time.No argument from me either. Wouldn't it be better if we could predict the future? :)


I don't know why when it comes to BD, people expect time to magically solve things. Again, many companies have gone out of business because hardware did not fix itself.Hmmmm... Well, sepculation. No argument from me.


Nope, it is not correct. You have to consider the fact that BD-J basically is not in use. So its performance profile is totally unknown. In contrast, we have two generation of products plus Xbox and PCs executing HDi day in and day out. And we have a ton of titles out there. Until BD-J is broadly adopted and we can see its performance on various hardware, one cannot compare these two technologies. Then why is it so difficult to get HDi implemented on SoC? Is it because it assumes PC-like bandwidth to be available? I am shooting in dark here. Please correct me.


Well, they are still going to rely on hardware encoders which are limited by what they can do. One day they will see the benefit of a software encoder which can improve daily. Until then….I think they will use software encoder on one of those Cell based computers. Not kidding! :)

Or like choosing to go with BD-25 because you can't get BD-50 supply? Yes, choices indeed. How easy do you think it is for a BD content company to swallow the BD-25 and put out a product with less capacity than HD DVD? How about passing on interactivity? How easy is that for say, Disney?

As long as you live in fantasy land, yes you are right. When you come down to real world, the situation is very different on the ground.

Paidgeek has stated that BD-50 is planned for 75-80% of the upcoming BD titles. Do you have anything other than your own speculation to say that is wrong ??

The "fantasy land" I live in has two shipping Toshiba HD-DVD players + Xbox addon for HW and Universal as the only exclusive studio supporting HD-DVD. Do you live somewhere different ?? :)

b2b

For me it's much simpler kdragon.

1. If they own an Xbox360 I advise them to buy the add-on. It's low cost and they can decide how they like the format without a big expense.

2. If they don't own the Xbox360 I recommend the HD-A2 if they are looking to keep their cost down.

3. If they are in the market for a high end player, I recommend the XA2. Great feature set and ReonVX for high quality SD DVD playback.

Plus with the free HD-DVD movies these are great deals. :)Sorry, I meant that for the Blu-ray supporters. Of course, if you support HD-DVD, then you are going recommend HD-DVD. I hope you know what you are doing. :)

Paidgeek has stated that BD-50 is planned for 75-80% of the upcoming BD titles. Do you have anything other than your own speculation to say that is wrong ??

b2b
paidgeek seems like a well schooled compressionist but he is not an optical engineer, working in Shizuoka. He works in Sony pictures, far way from the where the heat of the oven where the bread is made. So yes, I believe he is repeating what he has been told. But unless he shows us his credentials in material science and optical engineering, plus data to back his claim, I take his statement as marketing material for now.

paidgeek seems like a well schooled compressionist but he is not an optical engineer, working in Shizuoka. He works in Sony pictures, far way from the where the heat of the oven where the bread is made. So yes, I believe he is repeating what he has been told. But unless he shows us his credentials in material science and optical engineering, plus data to back his claim, I take his statement as marketing material for now.And yet, somehow, someone working in Microsoft knows more than him! Come on! Especially the one who believed BD50 to be science fiction! Would you leave this alone? This is not your area of expertise. You cannot attack everything under the sun, you know! :rolleyes:

The "fantasy land" I live in has two shipping Toshiba HD-DVD players + Xbox addon for HW and Universal as the only exclusive studio supporting HD-DVD. Do you live somewhere different ?? :)

b2b

The introduction of dual format players is here, and we will likely see more CE's move that direction. So the hardware advantage for either side may be moot.

Both sides will then have to prove their worth with software costs, quality, and features......the way it SHOULD be :D

And yet, somehow, someone working in Microsoft knows more than him! Come on! :rolleyes:
As compared to Sony pictures employee? Of course we do. You are forgetting that I used to work for Sony so I know quite well who does what there.

On our side, we have a large optical engineering team working in Xbox (our drives are custom to save money and implement our own special sauce for copy protection). I have personally been to Shizuoka plant (the original lab for BD) and we are constantly in contact with all the replicators in the business including frequent plant visits. Indeed, due to heavy reliance on optical media for Xbox and our large software distribution business, it is our business to know this industry far more than you can imagine.

I think you still think we are a software company but there is a lot more to Microsoft these days.

Note that I would have been more guarded had paidgeek been from their optical plant. But movie production and hardware are two separate things. The left and right brain thing.... :)

Speaking of "poor planning", I still am dumbfounded at HD-DVD only supporting 30mbps for their data rate. I can understand the 30GB limitation because of the optical physics involved with retaining the same depth of the data layer as DVD. But with 30mbps, all I can do is shake my head and wonder "what were they thinking ??".

They were thinking they actually knew the required bitrates for the codecs they were using?

You can start complaining about peak bitrates once BD titles start looking better than HD DVD.

Which isn't going to happen.

I certainly agree that those who want PiP and bought Blu-ray players that don't support it certainly won't be happy about that. Still in the long term it looks like Blu-ray has the better PiP specs and to me that is important.
BD is great if you're shopping for paper specs, but it's lousy if you're buying actual product (players or titles) as far as PIP goes. Releasing a whole generation of players that don't support this key features is going to hurt its use in BD for years, far more than having higher paper specs would have made for better titles.

Again, think of the Xbox 360 v. PS3 analogy. The 360 is hardware designed to do a great job running game software. HD DVD is hardware designed to do a great job running HD movie software. PS3 and BD are theoretically broader solutions (Cell might be intriguing, but it's certainly nothing that game developers were asking for), but they both have greater real-world complexity which leaves them less able to deliver a great eal world experience than simpler hardware that was designed to run great software.

Not launching with BD-Live mandatory is goign to be a constant thorn in the side for BD publishers and consumers for years, and it's a thorn HD DVD decided to leave out.

As compared to Sony pictures employee? Of course we do. You are forgetting that I used to work for Sony so I know quite well who does what there.

On our side, we have a large optical engineering team working in Xbox (our drives are custom to save money and implement our own special sauce for copy protection). I have personally been to Shizuoka plant (the original lab for BD) and we are constantly in contact with all the replicators in the business including frequent plant visits. Indeed, due to heavy reliance on optical media for Xbox and our large software distribution business, it is our business to know this industry far more than you can imagine.

I think you still think we are a software company but there is a lot more to Microsoft these days.

Note that I would have been more guarded had paidgeek been from their optical plant. But movie production and hardware are two separate things. The left and right brain thing.... :)

I think you are bit behind the curve, you don't have to fly to Japan to see BD50 being made. All you have to do is go to Terre Haute, IN.... ;)

b2b

The introduction of dual format players is here, and we will likely see more CE's move that direction. So the hardware advantage for either side may be moot.

Both sides will then have to prove their worth with software costs, quality, and features......the way it SHOULD be :D

One of the great advantages of the dual format player, is for BD. Since HD DVD requires decoding of DD+, a network connection, persistent storage, etc... that means there's a good chance the BD side of the player will also make use of these things, and that it's a good chance the player is BD-Live profile. If the LG comes out and is not BD-Live capable then there is something definitely wrong in BD land.

Well, if you are looking for the EXACT PHRASE "real PiP", you've probably left yourself a good out.

However, before the slight-of-hand that is The Descent Trick was exposed, nobody here really expected that we needed to qualify PiP as being real (or fake?), thus when Talk said THIS (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9345564&&#post9345564):

Luckily for me, I could actually care less about most of this stuff (as it applies to my life); it's just certain phrasing that gets picked up on my radar and gets me active.

Listen though, I totally agree. This Descent thing is unexpected, and certainly worthy of a raised eyebrow. For their part, well... it's an inventive solution. But I definitely am not going to associate myself with the idea that BD has begun putting out Picture-in-Picture titles (as the term is understood by me), and if scorn be levied on BD for their slowness in getting it up to speed, so be it. I'm most interested in facts, and that the 'gatekeepers' of knowledge police themselves to make sure only facts are coming through.

I think it fits your criteria in most reasonable people's minds, no?

Yeah, you know... Talkstr8t is saying something that is technically true; I'm no fan of that sort of wordplay. Indeed it's those 'letter of the law' vs 'spirit of the law' situations that get me worked up with Amir so often. So Talkstr8t, I mean I would just let the whole PiP thing go... everyone who follows this stuff, sort of knows the deal anyway.

The CEO of Warner Bros. Entertainment Barry Meyer quote saying " Digital distribution is easy,ubiguitous, and inexpensive," Meyers took a deep breath, "We have to adapt, or we'll become dinosaurs."Perhaps he is talking about movie burnt on a DVD-R at kiosk in a store something like Walmart. I heard that demand is huge from certain retailer, because of limited shelves (and "dead" stock). I expect that WB may reveal its plan of this at CES.

And yet, somehow, someone working in Microsoft knows more than him! Come on! Especially the one who believed BD50 to be science fiction! Would you leave this alone? This is not your area of expertise. You cannot attack everything under the sun, you know! :rolleyes:

All those BD-50 GB discs in the stores are just a figment of your imagination. :)

Just wait until he goes into his spin about "warping" and the protective layer being "unproven" technology. See, I have the "talking points" almost memorized... ;)

b2b

Then how do you explain the Descent? Why didn't they just author the disc using PiP that utitlized a secondary video stream and let the consumers wait for players that support it?Why release a title using a feature not currently widely-supported when they can release that same feature in a way that everyone can use?!? Your question illustrates the absurdity of the argument being used here against Lions Gate's content. They released a feature providing for video commentary in a small on-screen window (I won't use the term PiP to avoid offending those who seem to have trouble distinguishing between a user interface element and a programming mechanism). I haven't seen one user comment suggesting the feature was in some way deficient, or that someone was disappointed they couldn't move the window around the screen. There is no indication that the audio or picture quality on the disc suffered as a result of the mechanism used to deliver video commentary. Yet some here are suggesting that Lions Gate "cheated", or "did PiP the wrong way", and should use a different mechanism which wouldn't work on many players today and for which the only benefit would be leaving unused space on the disc. Simply absurd.

One of the great advantages of the dual format player, is for BD. Since HD DVD requires decoding of DD+, a network connection, persistent storage, etc... that means there's a good chance the BD side of the player will also make use of these things, and that it's a good chance the player is BD-Live profile. If the LG comes out and is not BD-Live capable then there is something definitely wrong in BD land.

Maybe,

But who knows if the implementation of these features will work on the BD side. I see it as putting both formats on equal footing and saying: "OK, now prove to the consumer that you're better."

The introduction of dual format players is here, and we will likely see more CE's move that direction. So the hardware advantage for either side may be moot.

Both sides will then have to prove their worth with software costs, quality, and features......the way it SHOULD be :D

Agreed. The heat will turn up as universal players make their way into homes. When consumers have more choices, the competition gets more fierce.

I believe you're saying that the PS3 supports secondary video and the other BD players do not. Is that correct?I'm saying the PS3 hardware is by all indication capable of supporting secondary video, and I fully expect Sony at some point to release a firmware update providing full BD-Live capability. I don't know whether other currently-released Blu-ray players are capable of secondary video. Since none of the other players has a network connection (other than the BDP-HD1, for which Pioneer has explicitly said downloaded content won't be supported), I don't think it's as big a deal if they can support secondary video, since they won't be able to support BD-Live content anyway.

BD is great if you're shopping for paper specs, but it's lousy if you're buying actual product (players or titles) as far as PIP goes. Releasing a whole generation of players that don't support this key features is going to hurt its use in BD for years, far more than having higher paper specs would have made for better titles.

Again, think of the Xbox 360 v. PS3 analogy. The 360 is hardware designed to do a great job running game software. HD DVD is hardware designed to do a great job running HD movie software. PS3 and BD are theoretically broader solutions (Cell might be intriguing, but it's certainly nothing that game developers were asking for), but they both have greater real-world complexity which leaves them less able to deliver a great eal world experience than simpler hardware that was designed to run great software.

Not launching with BD-Live mandatory is goign to be a constant thorn in the side for BD publishers and consumers for years, and it's a thorn HD DVD decided to leave out.

HD-DVD is great if all you like is Toshiba players or have $200 and a Xb360.. :)

b2b

I think you still think we are a software company but there is a lot more to Microsoft these days.



Being a sys. admin, I agree with you here. The only thing I HAVE to ask is: What was MS thinking when it released the ZUNE :D

Why release a title using a feature not currently widely-supported when they can release that same feature in a way that everyone can use?!? Your question illustrates the absurdity of the argument being used here against Lions Gate's content. They released a feature providing for video commentary in a small on-screen window (I won't use the term PiP to avoid offending those who seem to have trouble distinguishing between a user interface element and a programming mechanism). I haven't seen one user comment suggesting the feature was in some way deficient, or that someone was disappointed they couldn't move the window around the screen. There is no indication that the audio or picture quality on the disc suffered as a result of the mechanism used to deliver video commentary. Yet some here are suggesting that Lions Gate "cheated", or "did PiP the wrong way", and should use a different mechanism which wouldn't work on many players today and for which the only benefit would be leaving unused space on the disc. Simply absurd.

Yeah, and that's very fair to say. I think going forward in this thread we just need to do a better job at differentiating between 'Picture in Picture' the technical feature as it's being discussed in general, and picture-in-picture the real-world implementation.

I'm saying the PS3 hardware is by all indication capable of supporting secondary video, and I fully expect Sony at some point to release a firmware update providing full BD-Live capability. I don't know whether other currently-released Blu-ray players are capable of secondary video. Since none of the other players has a network connection (other than the BDP-HD1, for which Pioneer has explicitly said downloaded content won't be supported), I don't think it's as big a deal if they can support secondary video, since they won't be able to support BD-Live content anyway.

Thanks. Just wanted to confirm that I understood you correctly.

HD-DVD is great if all you like is Toshiba players or have $200 and a Xb360.. :)

b2b

Been avoiding the news the past few days? :rolleyes:

Yeah, and that's very fair to say. I think going forward in this thread we need to differentiate between 'Picture in Picture' the technical feature as it's being discussed in general, and picture-in-picture the actual real-world implementation.

In the mean time if you own a Sony BDP-S1 or Pioneer BDP-HD1 you're not seeing either picture on The Descent. Too bad about no network port on the Sony. That's going to make it a bigger hassle to get the software fix loaded.

Agreed. The heat will turn up as universal players make their way into homes. When consumers have more choices, the competition gets more fierce.

Well, I actually think the opposite; I just think it let's everyone get lazy. Sony... and likely MGM, Fox... and maybe Disney... would have little reason to switch sides. And neither would Universal. Warner's a freaky studio, so who knows what they'd do, but they could go all HD DVD in that instance and simply drop Blu-ray.

It would be a non-ideal situation, and everyone from consumers, to the retail channels, to the studios would prefer for a single format to triumph. But the fact is for better or for worse, dual-format player proliferation means you can get lazy and your content will still be able to sell into the giant morass that will become the 'dual-format capable HD installed base.'

This year and how it goes will determine if that is the future we are headed towards. It's not a bad world I don't think... just a sort of inefficient one.

Why release a title using a feature not currently widely-supported when they can release that same feature in a way that everyone can use?!? Your question illustrates the absurdity of the argument being used here against Lions Gate's content.
Did you forget the quote of yours I was responding to? You said:
Machines incapable of supporting secondary video comprise less than 5% of the installed base today. Studios will not create content based on such a minority lowest common denominator. Recall your history, lots of DVD authoring features standard today also didn't work on 1G players.

First you say the studios aren't going to worry about the "less than 5%" that are incapable of supporting secondary video, suggesting they would release features that would work on future machines. Then when the Descent is pointed out, you suddenly fall back on the fact that secondary video is "not currently widely-supported," suggesting that studios do in fact care about alienating early adopters by offering features they couldn't use. I'd just like to know which position you're sticking with, since it seems to be changing post to post.

Well, I actually think the opposite; I just think it let's everyone get lazy. Sony... and likely MGM, Fox... and maybe Disney... would have little reason to switch sides. And neither would Universal. Warner's a freaky studio, so who knows what they'd do, but they could go all HD DVD in that instance and simply drop Blu-ray.

It would be a non-ideal situation, and everyone from consumers, to the retail channels, to the studios would prefer for a single format to triumph. But the fact is for better or for worse, dual-format player proliferation means you can get lazy and your content will still be able to sell into the giant morass that will become the 'dual-format capable HD installed base.'

This year and how it goes will determine if that is the future we are headed towards. It's not a bad world I don't think... just a sort of inefficient one.


I disagree. The war will continue for the formats, but it will be transparent to the consumers...except that they WILL see a difference if one format is consistently delivering better quality at better prices. Competition is ALWAYS a good thing.

Just think, if HD DVD never existed, all BD releases might look like The 5th element of Taladega Nights. :eek:

As compared to Sony pictures employee? Of course we do. You are forgetting that I used to work for Sony so I know quite well who does what there. Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

On our side, we have a large optical engineering team working in Xbox (our drives are custom to save money and implement our own special sauce for copy protection). I have personally been to Shizuoka plant (the original lab for BD) and we are constantly in contact with all the replicators in the business including frequent plant visits. Indeed, due to heavy reliance on optical media for Xbox and our large software distribution business, it is our business to know this industry far more than you can imagine.

I think you still think we are a software company but there is a lot more to Microsoft these days.Last I checked, Microsoft still doesn't do disc replication. Or develop optical drives (or even OPUs). All you need to know about those drives for Xbox is the interface (most likely ATAPI). Have you used a BD-drive to try with Xbox? That would be interesting! :)

Congratulations for your trip to Shizuoka plant. That clarifies everything, doesn't it?! I don't know what to say! Really. What was I thinking!

Note that I would have been more guarded had paidgeek been from their optical plant. But movie production and hardware are two separate things. The left and right brain thing.... :)Okay, that is the only thing in your post that makes sense. It still doesn't mean you know more than him! The right and left brains are still closer together than some other body parts (or parts of some other body)! I think it would have been better if you had been more guarded! It would save you all the trouble! But you are not afraid of that, right? :)

I disagree. The war will continue for the formats, but it will be transparent to the consumers...except that they WILL see a difference if one format is consistently delivering better quality at better prices. Competition is ALWAYS a good thing.

Just think, if HD DVD never existed, all BD releases might look like The 5th element of Taladega Nights. :eek:

Just a warning. If paidgeek sees you talking about TN like that, there could be trouble. ;)


two by two hands of blu

I disagree. The war will continue for the formats, but it will be transparent to the consumers...except that they WILL see a difference if one format is consistently delivering better quality at better prices. Competition is ALWAYS a good thing.

Just think, if HD DVD never existed, all BD releases might look like The 5th element of Taladega Nights. :eek:

I created this poll a while ago to sort of get people with your mindset thinking:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767415

The fact is, you have to remove yourself from the thinking that somehow, it's the optical formats that are responsible for good or bad movie quality. It's not, it's the studios and the studios alone. Sony releasing on HD DVD doesn't make the 5th Element look better; same with FOX, and Disney. Likewise, were Universal to release on Blu-ray, their titles would look as good as they do on HD DVD. You realize that, right?

I'm ok if you want to discuss codecs - you won't find me ornery. But *do* put that variable into your logic... that it's one part storage capacity, one part bitrate, one part codec, and three parts studio effort. If HD DVDs, in your opinion, look better - all that means to me is Universal... among all the studios... has been the most commited to excellent PQ. And that's truly all it is.

All those BD-50 GB discs in the stores are just a figment of your imagination. :)

Just wait until he goes into his spin about "warping" and the protective layer being "unproven" technology. See, I have the "talking points" almost memorized... ;)

b2bYes, I thought this would not be a talking point anymore now that BD50's are appearing regularly. Anyway, I guess enough for today. I am off to watch The Descent and it's fake PiP! I don't know how much mileage Amir is going to extract out of this! Well, at least, now the forum is more lively, and we now get to see him outside of the Insiders thread! :)

I'm sorry, but I don't admit that. Amir made a well measured comment regarding the secrecy of BD specs, and the logical inference one can draw from that.Maybe you think what he said was justified, but when I read that post what I see is another negative comment that really wasn't needed. Something which I think we have more than enough of already because of this format war.


BD is great if you're shopping for paper specs, but it's lousy if you're buying actual product (players or titles) as far as PIP goes.Sure, and if I cared greatly about the short term that would be important to me. Also this is somewhat based on the pessimistic view that none of the current Blu-ray players will ever be capable of PiP.


Releasing a whole generation of players that don't support this key features is going to hurt its use in BD for years, far more than having higher paper specs would have made for better titles.Personally I disagree since not to long from now, maybe even by the end of the year, we are going to be talking about only a tiny percentage of Blu-ray players sold. As such I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to imply this will be a major issue for years into the future.


Not launching with BD-Live mandatory is goign to be a constant thorn in the side for BD publishers and consumers for years, and it's a thorn HD DVD decided to leave out.Roses have thorns and dandelions do not, but does that mean everyone chooses dandelions over roses? Blu-ray may have a few more thorns than HD DVD does but what it delivers in my opinion more than makes up for that.

I created this poll a while ago to sort of get people with your mindset thinking:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767415

The fact is, you have to remove yourself from the thinking that somehow, it's the optical formats that are responsible for good or bad movie quality. It's not, it's the studios and the studios alone. Sony releasing on HD DVD doesn't make the 5th Element look better; same with FOX, and Disney. Likewise, were Universal to release on Blu-ray, their titles would look as good as they do on HD DVD. You realize that, right?

I'm ok if you want to discuss codecs - you won't find me ornery. But *do* put that variable into your logic... that it's one part storage capacity, one part bitrate, one part codec, and three parts studio effort. If HD DVDs, in your opinion, look better - all that means to me is Universal... among all the studios... has been the most commited to excellent PQ. And that's truly all it is.


I apologize for not being more clear. I DO recognize that it is the studios and the encoding that make the difference and I agree with you 100%. My comment was reffering to the fact that MOST BD are mpeg and MOST HD DVD is VC1. So you can substitue format for codec if you'd like.

On the competition side, I agree that either format CAN look the same with equal encoding...no doubt there. The question will be who will do the better job more consistently and on what format (even though the physical media is NOT the real factor). So when I speak of competition, I mean that studios will have to spend more time making their releases look better. IF only BD existed, what would have prevented them from continuing to release sub-par discs? Since there was HD DVD to compete, there was something to compare against. Again, this is totally an encoding issue, but one side has been doing a better job.

What I am saying is that it would be disturbing if the people producing BD players and content knew at the time the first generation players started being sold that in approximately one year there would be such a drastic change in requirements and capabilities that the first generation players would not be able to deal with.As I've said before, I would have preferred to see more transparency in how player and format specs are publicized. Nonetheless, I think you overstate the matter when you call this "such a drastic change in requirements". Anyone who cares about network connectivity could clearly determine whether the player they are buying supports a network connection. That leaves secondary video as the main feature whose absence in some 1G players may mean some bonus content won't be available. In terms of what the studios are planning for bonus content, I don't think most would consider the availability of secondary video to be as overwhelmingly significant as the term "drastic" suggests.

You are chasing the wrong argument. Talk wanted to put a spin out there that there is no lower cost HD DVD player than PS3. I showed that there was.The fact that the lowest cost player with a retail price of $499 is being routinely discounted to $350 within days of its release certainly doesn't bode well for the demand side of the equation. You rarely see products with strong demand (especially those which have little direct competition) discounted, especially by nearly 30% shortly after introduction. What's up with that?!?

I apologize for not being more clear. I DO recognize that it is the studios and the encoding that make the difference and I agree with you 100%. My comment was reffering to the fact that MOST BD are mpeg and MOST HD DVD is VC1. So you can substitue format for codec if you'd like.

A lot of people due indeed use the format/codecs interchangably - I'm just not one of them. :) But I do know what you mean.

On the competition side, I agree that either format CAN look the same with equal encoding...no doubt there. The question will be who will do the better job more consistently and on what format (even though the physical media is NOT the real factor). So when I speak of competition, I mean that studios will have to spend more time making their releases look better.

Ok I agree with all of this.

IF only BD existed, what would have prevented them from continuing to release sub-par discs? Since there was HD DVD to compete, there was something to compare against. Again, this is totally an encoding issue, but one side has been doing a better job.

Let's pretend that only BD25 existed. (To hear some talk you might think so anyway!) Ok so we only have BD25 - it is the *only* format. In this world, I don't see things as any different. Sony goes MPEG-2 with a future roadmap to AVC. FOX dabbles in MPEG-2 but has a stronger AVC ramp planned. Disney does MPEG-2 but begins some VC-1. Warner and Universal both go straight VC-1. Paramount... whatever.

Truthfully in an all BD world, I don't see any quality drop by default (except that some of the excellent MPEG-2 titles we've seen may not have turned out well in a non-BD50 landscape). If I'm thankful for something, it's that due to the fact that we are in a format war.. more than usual studios are having attention called to PQ discrepencies, and everyone more or less has it in their head now that Universal and their encodes are the ones to catch to help their own interests move forward. No more being lazy. And for this I don't even thank HD DVD so much as I thank Universal, who is fighting their hearts out... as one would expect from the sole exclusive studio of their chosen format. And I think their efforts have resulted in excellence.

But again, that is excellence I associate with Universal, not with HD DVD. I hope it rubs off on the other studios, and frankly I'm happy to say I think it already has.

My problem with a dual-format world is that the studios will no longer have to participate actively in the 'fight' to push their chosen formats. They'll be able to just be lazy and sell the film into retail on the basis of it being a film people might like, and hey it's in HD.

But again, that is excellence I associate with Universal, not with HD DVD. I hope it rubs off on the other studios, and frankly I'm happy to say I think it already has.

On this, I hope we ALL can agree. In the end, we all just want the best HD content we can get....and for the prices we are paying for it, we SHOULD demand it ;)

So they invented these “profiles” as way to soften the blow.No, they used profiles in recognition of the fact that the Blu-ray format is based on a lot of new technology (intended to actually provide some opportunity for growth, rather than what I will characterize as HD-DVD's "good enough" approach), and it might not be realistic to implement all of them at once within a reasonable timeframe. So given the choice of either throwing everything in the spec but risk delaying initial product shipments until well after an inferior format has established itself in the public's eye as the next-gen optical media format, or launching with most of the format's features in a competitive timeframe but allowing a few features not to be implemented until 2G models, the second option was selected. And in spite of all the hand-waving here from HD-DVD partisans about how dire an impact this choice will have on the format, history has shown that the impact will be limited to a comparatively small number of early players, and that the impact is essentially very little different from incompatibilities and feature exclusions which 1G players have suffered in other format launches (i.e. DVD incompatibility with early players).
then went on to dance around the topic in interviews and have Talk provide illusive answers here.Sorry, I post for myself. I've never had a single discussion at BDA meetings regarding my posting here. If and when I speak formally for the BDA I'll do it under my real name, not a forum alias.

Then you waltz in and say "all current decks can do PiP, as evidenced by The Descent".Steve, I'm sorry if you feel I've misled you regarding PiP; it really wasn't my intent. If you search back to my earlier posts on this topic I've never shied away from the fact that secondary video support is not required in early Blu-ray players. My comment regarding "all players can do PiP" was in reference to it being possible to provide the user experience of showing a video window on screen regardless of whether secondary video hardware support is present in a player. No, the method is not as efficient as using secondary video hardware, though if you've got the bits it can have some advantages as well. Nonetheless, if my comments led you to believe that all Blu-ray players have secondary video hardware support, I apologize.
Not to mention Alex points out that all the BR documentation discusses PiP in the context of what you now have decided to call "secondary video stream support". I don't know what BR documentation he's referring to, but the actual specification primarily refers to "secondary video" and "secondary "audio" when discussing the hardware capability. To my knowledge Alex does not have access to the spec.
Would you care to show us where that distinction has been made prior to your making it in the last day or two? For instance, which does the BD-Video 1.1 profile spec require, "PiP Support" or "Secondary video stream hardware supprt"?The exact terminology used (for those playing along at home, sections D.2.13 and D.2.14 of BD-ROM Part 3 Annex D V 2.01 Draft 2, page 1-627) is "Secondary video plane".

- Talk

No, they used profiles in recognition of the fact that the Blu-ray format is based on a lot of new technology and it might not be realistic to implement all of them at once within a reasonable timeframe. So given the choice of either throwing everything in the spec but risk delaying initial product shipments until well after an inferior format has established itself in the public's eye as the next-gen optical media format, or launching with most of the format's features in a competitive timeframe but allowing a few features not to be implemented until 2G models, the second option was selected. And in spite of all the hand-waving here from HD-DVD partisans about how dire an impact this choice will have on the format, history has shown that the impact will be limited to a comparatively small number of early players, and that the impact is essentially very little different from incompatibilities and feature exclusions which 1G players have suffered in other format launches (i.e. DVD incompatibility with early players).



The PR talk aside, it would have been really simple for Sun to give the hardware requirements to the CE's for full BD-Live support, have the CE's implement solutions that are hardware compatiable (PC like setups until the SOC's are ready) and then do software updates over time. This way, for once, the consumers win. But hey, F' the consumers eh? who cares? they'll take what they get because "NEW TECH! BR!" is written all over the box, right? It's a real shame that enthusaists on sites like this are willing to get shafted time after time and not force companies to break paradigm. Then again, looking at the sales of the stand alone players, maybe a lot of them have smartened up!

Talk, we're not discussing $99 players at Walmart. We're talking $1000+ players. It's even more critical when your competition is delivering. You keep talking about a "higher tech" but really, you don't have anything to show for it. Next time you're at the BR meetings be sure to let other CE's know that many people preferred the PS3 over their product because their player are unfinished and we know they'll be made obselete. I'm sure they'll be jumping for joy at losing the sales to the PS3 because we all know that the BR camp is all about the common good.

So if the Samsung Gen 2 player is cheaper and fully BD-Live compatiable than Gen 1 then all of a sudden this massive cost of full BD-Live support has disappeared in only the past few months? This is a tough pill to swallow.

At the end of the day Bill, with your "BD Insider" hat on, you are speaking for the BR camp. Like it or not. While you may not officially disclose your identity, I think most of us know exactly who is talking to us. If it looks, walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck....

Actually "most" TVs on the market *cannot* do 1080p, which is what he is talking about.No, he isn't.
I notice in your response you left the "1080" absent an "i" or a "p" so that your answer could be "accurate"...Once again you've totally missed the point and have misstated the facts. The PS3 will happily output 1080p content in 1080i format. Any TV which can accept 1080i will play all 1080 PS3 content at its native resolution (though obviously it will be interlaced if the TV can't accept progressive).

That the spec wasn't deployable in 1st gen players is a pretty good definition of NOT planned out pretty nicely!No, it's a reflection of the fact that Blu-ray is intended to provide some headroom to support future content requirements. As I've said, Blu-ray is revolutionary, HD-DVD is evolutionary. If waiting an extra six months means we get a format which is good years longer than what HD-DVD's capabilities can provide, I think it's a reasonable trade-off.
Not launching with BD-Live mandatory is goign to be a constant thorn in the side for BD publishers and consumers for years, and it's a thorn HD DVD decided to leave out.Ben, you've made this comment repeatedly. Has a single Blu-ray format publisher ever specifically told you they will hold off releasing BD-Live content because a relatively small number of launch players won't support it? I've been told the opposite repeatedly. "Constant thorn in the side for years" is a rather dramatic overstatement of reality. Given that every HD-DVD player has network connectivity yet not a single title has been released which makes use of it, there is as of yet no evidence that BD-Live being optional has any bearing whatsoever on whether the studios will support it.

When the Descent is pointed out, you suddenly fall back on the fact that secondary video is "not currently widely-supported," suggesting that studios do in fact care about alienating early adopters by offering features they couldn't use.No, studios care about releasing features which consumers can actually use today. It would be pointless for The Descent to use secondary video to implement its PiP if no one could actually use it for several months when there's a perfectly adequate way to do it which everyone can view. When most players support secondary video I doubt you'll see any studio using the methods used by The Descent. For titles released today it makes sense to use methods which can be viewed today.

Any TV which can accept 1080i will play all PS3 content at its native resolution (though obviously it will be interlaced if the TV can't accept progressive).

You have to qualify what you mean by "all PS3 content" as there are several types of content from the PS3 that won't play on many 1080i HDTVs. I've run into it on my own PS3 including some of the "extras" type content from blu-ray movies that PS3 doesn't scale up, some games, as well as video files that are not in 1080 resolution already.

Perhaps you mean "all 1080 compatible PS3 content".

No, studios care about releasing features which consumers can actually use today. It would be pointless for The Descent to use secondary video to implement its PiP if no one could actually use it for several months when there's a perfectly adequate way to do it which everyone can view. When most players support secondary video I doubt you'll see any studio using the methods used by The Descent. For titles released today it makes sense to use methods which can be viewed today.

Why the need for 2nd video support when BD50 could just hold 2 video streams of the same movie with one being PIP. That way even the 1st gen will always be supported and there will be no need for BD Video 1.1 profile.

:rolleyes:

The PR talk aside, it would have been really simple for Sun to give the hardware requirements to the CE's for full BD-Live support, have the CE's implement solutions that are hardware compatiable (PC like setups until the SOC's are ready) and then do software updates over time.You greatly oversimplify the dynamic of how the process works. Everyone has their own agenda. Studios want the most features possible and are much less concerned with hardware cost. CE vendors want just enough features to compel consumers to buy while retaining the cheapest, easiest, and fastest-to-market hardware design. Other technology providers (like Sun and TDK) have other agendas. It's a complicated dance involving lots of compromise to actually create a specification, and the fact is the CE vendors have more leverage than do the studios.
Talk, we're not discussing $99 players at Walmart. We're talking $1000+ players.Which is the exact same price point VCR's, CD players, and DVD players came to market at, and the same basic dance happened there as well.
It's even more critical when your competition is delivering. You keep talking about a "higher tech" but really, you don't have anything to show for it.HD-DVD under-promised and over-delivered. If HD-DVD "wins", I suspect it'll be short-lived, as the spec just doesn't have enough headroom to be relevant for much more than three or four years (in my opinion). It's good enough for HD picture and audio quality based on today's expectations. It's not well-suited to recordable media, so it won't make as much of an impact for PC data/video storage or high-def camcorders, and the capacity roadmap is underwhelming. This, of course, plays directly to Microsoft's strategy of moving everyone to a Windows-centric (OS and DRM) world of downloads, so it's no surprise they are strongly backing HD-DVD. Blu-ray, on the other hand, has higher capacity, higher bandwidth, far better recording options, and a more flexible content platform which is aligned with that selected by the US cable/broadcast industry, so it's far better-suited to remain relevant for years to come. The cost of that headroom is it takes a bit longer to be operating on all cylinders - consider the 1G players to be running on six cylinders, while the BD-Live-enabled PS3 and those released after 6/07 will be firing on all eight. Next time you're at the BR meetings be sure to let other CE's know that many people preferred the PS3 over their product because their player are unfinished and we know they'll be made obselete. I'm sure they'll be jumping for joy at losing the sales to the PS3 because we all know that the BR camp is all about the common good.
So if the Samsung Gen 2 player is cheaper and fully BD-Live compatiable than Gen 1 then all of a sudden this massive cost of full BD-Live support has disappeared in only the past few months? This is a tough pill to swallow.Sorry, it's today's electronics reality. Two months after I bought a 32" 720p LCD TV for my bedroom I could have bought a 37" 1080p model for roughly the same price. Everyone who bought an iPod for the holidays last month risks having Apple introduce a better, cheaper model next week at MacWorld.
At the end of the day Bill, with your "BD Insider" hat on, you are speaking for the BR camp. Like it or not.Not much I post here would change were I posting in an offical BDA capacity (I'd probably withhold a few of my more vociferous comments and resist some of rdjam's flamebait). I've never intentionally posted to mislead, though I can see how a few of my posts may have been interpreted that way.

You have to qualify what you mean by "all PS3 content" as there are several types of content from the PS3 that won't play on many 1080i HDTVs. I've run into it on my own PS3 including some of the "extras" type content from blu-ray movies that PS3 doesn't scale up, some games, as well as video files that are not in 1080 resolution already.

Perhaps you mean "all 1080 compatible PS3 content".Fair enough - I've edited my original post to reflect that. The bottom line is the vast majority (if not all) currently available TV's support both 720p and 1080i inputs, and as such the PS3 should never downrez anything to 480p. 1080p input is certainly not required as rdjam insinuates.

HD-DVD under-promised and over-delivered. If HD-DVD "wins", I suspect it'll be short-lived, as the spec just doesn't have enough headroom to be relevant for much more than three or four years (in my opinion).

Care to elaborate?

This is about movies. Clearly, they'll fit on a HD30 disc at a very high quality. As VC1 and AVC HP improve they'll fit with even more room to spare. Or are we going to see 4+ hour long movies routinely because all of a sudden there is more room with BD50?

The fact that the lowest cost player with a retail price of $499 is being routinely discounted to $350 within days of its release certainly doesn't bode well for the demand side of the equation. You rarely see products with strong demand (especially those which have little direct competition) discounted, especially by nearly 30% shortly after introduction. What's up with that?!?Where's a $350. selling price???

I think you need to double check your information.

-Robert

Care to elaborate?

This is about movies. Clearly, they'll fit on a HD30 disc at a very high quality. As VC1 and AVC HP improve they'll fit with even more room to spare. Or are we going to see 4+ hour long movies routinely because all of a sudden there is more room with BD50?
American releases will fit on an HD-30 with little to no HD extras. What about European releases of the same movies? It's noticable that Studio Canal doesn't seem to have any extras on their announced HD DVD discs...

As a point of interest I put Batman Begins DVD in for a quick spin last night. There are more than 50 language options just for menu set up. Are WB really going to release a different version of the movie for each country? Or will they just put poor quality audio for all the non English tracks? That'll go down well...

VC-1 & H.264 fit into the Blu-Ray area just like they do for HD-DVD. ;)

Do you hate HW efficiency because it doesn't make SW nearly as important ??

b2b

Cost and complexity are considerations.

There's the little thing about how much it costs to make something and ease of manufacture to consider.

An effective engineering solution doesn't waste resources on capacity that is nice to have but not needed. Compare a modern cable span bridge to a 19th century massive stone bridge.

Blu-ray dual layer may have more capacity but if they cost more than SL25 discs, they may not be used on a lot of releases, so SL 25 GB may be used a lot.

HD DVD DL30 which cost about the same as a SL15 may actually have that extra 5 GB of space for most releases.

American releases will fit on an HD-30 with little to no HD extras. What about European releases of the same movies? It's noticable that Studio Canal doesn't seem to have any extras on their announced HD DVD discs...

As a point of interest I put Batman Begins DVD in for a quick spin last night. There are more than 50 language options just for menu set up. Are WB really going to release a different version of the movie for each country? Or will they just put poor quality audio for all the non English tracks? That'll go down well...

I don't believe it's a big deal to have different disks for different languages if needed. No compelling reason to have a single 50 language version....As far as I can see.

Where's a $350. selling price???

I think you need to double check your information.

-Robert

That street price was quoted by Amir!

I Think you need to read the whole thread first...

As I've said before, I would have preferred to see more transparency in how player and format specs are publicized. Nonetheless, I think you overstate the matter when you call this "such a drastic change in requirements". Anyone who cares about network connectivity could clearly determine whether the player they are buying supports a network connection. That leaves secondary video as the main feature whose absence in some 1G players may mean some bonus content won't be available. In terms of what the studios are planning for bonus content, I don't think most would consider the availability of secondary video to be as overwhelmingly significant as the term "drastic" suggests.

I personally don't care that much about secondary video. What I am concerned about is whether discs with this feature will be completely unplayable on my first generation player. Are you telling me that my concern is unfounded, and that as long as I don't care about the secondary video feature, I will be able to access all other features on the disc without upgrading to a second generation or later player?

Luckily for me, I could actually care less about most of this stuff (as it applies to my life); it's just certain phrasing that gets picked up on my radar and gets me active.

Listen though, I totally agree. This Descent thing is unexpected, and certainly worthy of a raised eyebrow. For their part, well... it's an inventive solution. But I definitely am not going to associate myself with the idea that BD has begun putting out Picture-in-Picture titles (as the term is understood by me), and if scorn be levied on BD for their slowness in getting it up to speed, so be it. I'm most interested in facts, and that the 'gatekeepers' of knowledge police themselves to make sure only facts are coming through.



Yeah, you know... Talkstr8t is saying something that is technically true; I'm no fan of that sort of wordplay. Indeed it's those 'letter of the law' vs 'spirit of the law' situations that get me worked up with Amir so often. So Talkstr8t, I mean I would just let the whole PiP thing go... everyone who follows this stuff, sort of knows the deal anyway.

Fair enough, and I think we on the same relative page in terms of wanting the straight facts on this stuff...

I'm saying the PS3 hardware is by all indication capable of supporting secondary video, and I fully expect Sony at some point to release a firmware update providing full BD-Live capability. I don't know whether other currently-released Blu-ray players are capable of secondary video. Since none of the other players has a network connection (other than the BDP-HD1, for which Pioneer has explicitly said downloaded content won't be supported), I don't think it's as big a deal if they can support secondary video, since they won't be able to support BD-Live content anyway. (emphasis mine)

Now that's odd. Why would the presence of some net-interactive capability obviate the need for local "real PiP" (to use your term)? Aren't there literally thousands of titles likely to be authored with extras that would use it right off the disc?

Unless you are suggesting that the "fake PiP" method is sufficent for all non network-sourced PiP content?

Where's a $350. selling price???

I think you need to double check your information.

-Robert

Is $372 close enough?

http://dealnews.com/deals/Toshiba-HD-A2-HD-DVD-Player-for-372/147978.html

As I've said before, I would have preferred to see more transparency in how player and format specs are publicized. Nonetheless, I think you overstate the matter when you call this "such a drastic change in requirements". Anyone who cares about network connectivity could clearly determine whether the player they are buying supports a network connection. That leaves secondary video as the main feature whose absence in some 1G players may mean some bonus content won't be available. In terms of what the studios are planning for bonus content, I don't think most would consider the availability of secondary video to be as overwhelmingly significant as the term "drastic" suggests.

Yet, that is just ONE feature that is required for -Live compliance, and happens to be the one where you can see evidence of it on the player.

Every time you suggest that a consumer needs to make this educated decision, I've asked WHERE such information is avaialable and you, or any others, have never given me an answer.

So I continue to ask: Where does the consumer get the info to make an educated decision regarding -Live features?

I personally don't care that much about secondary video. What I am concerned about is whether discs with this feature will be completely unplayable on my first generation player. Are you telling me that my concern is unfounded, and that as long as I don't care about the secondary video feature, I will be able to access all other features on the disc without upgrading to a second generation or later player?


The movie itself will/should play just fine. It's just when you click for that feature it'll either not do anything or give you a "non supported" message.
However, I say "should" seeing that Descent does not play on the Sony or BR players. So you might have to wait for a firmware update down the road.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/06/the-descent-giving-fits-to-bd-java-less-blu-ray-players/

The movie itself will/should play just fine. It's just when you click for that feature it'll either not do anything or give you a "non supported" message.
However, I say "should" seeing that Descent does not play on the Sony or BR players. So you might have to wait for a firmware update down the road.

I hope you are right. Are you telling me you know this or are you making a prediction?

The example of The Descent not playing at all on many current players is certainly worrisome.

Blu-Ray 48Mbps, 50GB
0.........1.........2....x....3.........4.........50GB
+------------------------|------------------------+
| | |48 Mb/s
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |40
| | |
HD-DVD 30Mbps, 30GB | |
0.........1.........2.........30GB |
+-----------------------------+30 Mb/s |30
| | |
| | |
| +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Blu-ray 25GB Disk | |
| |20 |20
| | |
DVD 10Mbps, 9.4GB | |
0........9.4GB | |
+--------+10 Mb/s |10 |10
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |0
+--------+--------------------+-------------------+

Cost and complexity are considerations.

There's the little thing about how much it costs to make something and ease of manufacture to consider.

An effective engineering solution doesn't waste resources on capacity that is nice to have but not needed. Compare a modern cable span bridge to a 19th century massive stone bridge.

Blu-ray dual layer may have more capacity but if they cost more than SL25 discs, they may not be used on a lot of releases, so SL 25 GB may be used a lot.

HD DVD DL30 which cost about the same as a SL15 may actually have that extra 5 GB of space for most releases.

I don't know what you attempted to do by disfiguring the chart. ;) So I will post it again.... And if you can't improve on it please don't do a graffiti job on it and post it as a quote from me...

Time for the chart...again... © 2006 & 2007 by b2bonez & MrHanky :)

Blu-Ray 48Mbps, 50GB
0.........1.........2....x....3.........4.........50GB
+------------------------|------------------------+
| | |48 Mb/s
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |40
| | |
HD-DVD 30Mbps, 30GB | |
0.........1.........2.........30GB |
+-----------------------------+30 Mb/s |30
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |20 |20
| | |
DVD 10Mbps, 9.4GB | |
0........9.4GB | |
+--------+10 Mb/s |10 |10
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |0
+--------+--------------------+-------------------+
Chart is copyright © 2006 & 2007 by b2bonez and MrHanky
All rights reserved with permission to copy and publish without
alteration is hearby granted. Disfigurement or un-authorized
modification is not allowded.
Please respect other peoples work (however humble it is..)


b2b

I don't know what you attempted to do by disfiguring the chart. ;) So I will post it again.... And if you can't improve on it please don't do a graffiti job on it and post it as a quote from me...

Time for the chart...again... © 2006 & 2007 by b2bonez & MrHanky :)

Blu-Ray 48Mbps, 50GB
0.........1.........2....x....3.........4.........50GB
+------------------------|------------------------+
| | |48 Mb/s
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |40
| | |
HD-DVD 30Mbps, 30GB | |
0.........1.........2.........30GB |
+-----------------------------+30 Mb/s |30
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |20 |20
| | |
DVD 10Mbps, 9.4GB | |
0........9.4GB | |
+--------+10 Mb/s |10 |10
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |0
+--------+--------------------+-------------------+
Chart is copyright © 2006 & 2007 by b2bonez and MrHanky
All rights reserved with permission to copy and publish without
alteration is hearby granted. Disfigurement or un-authorised
modification is not allowded.
Please respect other peoples work (however humble it is..)


b2b


LOL...just about as useless and misguided as most of the stuff you post on the topic ;)

well, there goes the market for any of the pricey bd players...maybe even the xa2 although at least it has the SO HQV Reon which in and of itself may be worth the price of the xa2

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9383449&&#post9383449

This isn't true. Developer kits were only widely available in early 2006, well less than a year before release and probably much less lead time than Xbox 360 developers had.


Perhaps, but Developer Kits != Components. The RSX and Cell were ready at roughly the same time that the Xenos and Xenon Chipsets were.


That's because most third-party titles today are cross-platform, with the Xbox 360 having been the lead platform. Few if any of these are going to have much PS3 optimization.


And this should continue through the life cycle I would think ...


Not correct. Most TV's (and probably every new HDTV) can accept 1080 and internally scale to 720 for display. Only early 720 RPTV's didn't routinely accept 1080 input.

Well, of course, that depends on which 1080 you are talking about. 'Most' TV's cannot accept a 1080p Signal ... many of the newer ones on the shelf today can, but 'Most' in households, cannot. Therefore, if a game is encoded solely in 1080p, the PS3 will only output in ... yup ... 1080p -- which means 'Most' people will be able to see that content in SD 480p -- That's Next Generation for you! I find it ironic that Sony said the Xbox 360 wasn't truly "Next Gen" because it didn't support 1080p". Well ... here we are, a year later ... and the Xbox 360 actually has better 1080p Support. *shrug*

Actually "most" TVs on the market *cannot* do 1080p, which is what he is talking about.

I notice in your response you left the "1080" absent an "i" or a "p" so that your answer could be "accurate"...

You noticed that too, eh? I guess the PS3 Supports "1080" like The Descent Supports "PiP". :(

No, it's a reflection of the fact that Blu-ray is intended to provide some headroom to support future content requirements. As I've said, Blu-ray is revolutionary, HD-DVD is evolutionary. If waiting an extra six months means we get a format which is good years longer than what HD-DVD's capabilities can provide, I think it's a reasonable trade-off.
Ben, you've made this comment repeatedly. Has a single Blu-ray format publisher ever specifically told you they will hold off releasing BD-Live content because a relatively small number of launch players won't support it? I've been told the opposite repeatedly. "Constant thorn in the side for years" is a rather dramatic overstatement of reality. Given that every HD-DVD player has network connectivity yet not a single title has been released which makes use of it, there is as of yet no evidence that BD-Live being optional has any bearing whatsoever on whether the studios will support it.

I think that your comparison to functionality on HD DVD decks is a good one. But it would seem more likely to me that lack of net-interactive features would have more to do with things similar to those youv'e mentioned regarding the growth curve for BD-J devlopment: toolsets, training, etc... not to mention that a server-side infrastructure needs to be set up and maintained for quite some time after the titles are published. I see this as no different than the fact that we didn't see things like U-Control immediately out of the gate, but there was some ramp up time.

But the key difference is, when HD DVD authoring folk are ready to roll those features out, they will ostensibly work on all previous players, thus giving no cause to consider alienating a portion of the customer base. With there being no clear communication from the BDA as to what a player does, or what titles will be labeled as, etc... there is the risk of alienation that may give some studios pause.

American releases will fit on an HD-30 with little to no HD extras. What about European releases of the same movies? It's noticable that Studio Canal doesn't seem to have any extras on their announced HD DVD discs...
Studio Canal did not put the extras in there because they did not have such material for all the markets (read, languages) that they publish in. Remember that some of the titles are from BD studios and were released in US that way, in BD-25. So capacity was not an issue whatsoever.

I know the above has become nice folklore to bash HD DVD but as a company who has direct relationship with Studio Canal, I can tell you it is pure myth. If folks like to hang their hat on that is fine. But if things change, they would look awfully bad.

Also keep in mind that their titles all have DTS lossless audio. So if they were pressed for space, they could have gone with lossy audio. After all, some of the BD LG titles were lossy audio only.

As a point of interest I put Batman Begins DVD in for a quick spin last night. There are more than 50 language options just for menu set up. Are WB really going to release a different version of the movie for each country? Or will they just put poor quality audio for all the non English tracks? That'll go down well...
No, Warner is smart. They absolutely optimized the video quality as to leave maximum room for anything else. BB clocks at just 12 mbit/sec data rate for a reason. They could have stopped optimizing after two days and left it higher rate but they did not.

BTW, care you to comment what happens to all of these high data rate MPEG-2 BD movies when they go to Europe? Will they ditch the PCM tracks to make space for those "50" lanaguages? Remember that they don't have lossless audio support so next step down will be good old DD for them.

LOL...just about as useless and misguided as most of the stuff you post on the topic ;)

That may be true... :) But it is "my" useless and misguided stuff and don't care for people to do "graffiti" modifications just to make it look bad. I expect a tad bit better of some folks (are you listening Kosty ??).

b2b

So given the choice of either throwing everything in the spec but risk delaying initial product shipments until well after an inferior format has established itself in the public's eye as the next-gen optical media format, or launching with most of the format's features in a competitive timeframe but allowing a few features not to be implemented until 2G models, the second option was selected.
So they worried so much about the "inferior" format that they released an inferior product themselves with little support for interactivity or advanced audio codecs? And with poor content quality to boot? Which business school teaches you that?

And in spite of all the hand-waving here from HD-DVD partisans about how dire an impact this choice will have on the format, history has shown that the impact will be limited to a comparatively small number of early players, and that the impact is essentially very little different from incompatibilities and feature exclusions which 1G players have suffered in other format launches (i.e. DVD incompatibility with early players).
There has never been a history of a format war in the age of internet. OK Divx was a bit into it but not to this scale. So go ahead and underestimate what it means to mistreat early adopters. And while you are at it, think back a year where the ICT flag was taken out of the titles due to cries of early adopters.

Sorry, I post for myself. I've never had a single discussion at BDA meetings regarding my posting here. If and when I speak formally for the BDA I'll do it under my real name, not a forum alias.
Have you consulted with any BDA company about the information you post here? Or is every answer coming from you personally and solely based on your own data?

No, Warner is smart. They absolutely optimized the video quality as to leave maximum room for anything else. BB clocks at just 12 mbit/sec data rate for a reason. They could have stopped optimizing after two days and left it higher rate but they did not.



They optimized the video quality by lowering the bit rate? What am I missing here?

Which is the exact same price point VCR's, CD players, and DVD players came to market at, and the same basic dance happened there as well.


Mmmm.... no I don't think so.

Can yo give me an example of a previous CE tech that knowingly had Profiles and planned on releaseing content features that would never work on early gen models, all without disclosure?