1. Any new info? Is it still waiting to be approved? Will my HDA2 be able to play when (if) they ever come out?

2. Any news on whether bandwidth was increased or it still maxed out at 36mbps for video+audio?

3 last postings by Amir about this in the insider thread:

date 040107
Following up on an oft asked question, looks like the wheels are in motion in DVD Forum to study Toshiba's triple layer, 51 gigabyte HD DVD disc. Don't have more information than this to share in public. But just thought you all want to know :).

date 040207
Our guess is 6 to 12 months. Note that there are some other interesting variations being proposed on top of the base TL-51. But I like to keep you in suspense on them until there is more discussion in the forum :). These variations may make it longer to ratify their proposal.

date 040307
I don't know how to answer "working." Toshiba is presenting their proposal and the forum will review details of it and decide. I head heard last year that TL-51 had support for 1.5X data rate but I have nothing else beyond that to confirm it.

We should wait to see what comes out of the forum.

I guess we'll find out if out HD DVD players can spin at 1.5x by firmware.

I guess we'll find out if out HD DVD players can spin at 1.5x by firmware.

Maybe these variations Amir is speaking of have to do with exactly that, spin rate.

I just don't see any real advantage to increasing size and bandwith other than bragging rights over BR. One thing for sure is that pending that, BR will have no physical/programming advantage left, and the only hurdle to overcome for HD DVD would be studio support. It will take one defecting studio to change the ball game, after that it's status quo forever. And seeing how Samsung's Duo Player is now official, we can all see where this is going...

If they stay with VC1 DolbyTrueHD/DTS MasterHD i find little need for Increased bandwith and larger storage space.

If they stay with VC1 DolbyTrueHD/DTS MasterHD i find little need for Increased bandwith and larger storage space.7.1 lossless audio with full PiP might push the current bandwidth limit a bit. Therefore 1.5x spin rate may help for a few future titles.

If they stay with VC1 DolbyTrueHD/DTS MasterHD i find little need for Increased bandwith and larger storage space.

I think it is so that the fans of EXTRAS will quit whining about not being able to watch 4 hours worth of extras in HD on the same disk! All Toshiba needs to do is throw a single layer HD-DVD disk in to keep the natives from freaking out because to some, extras are more important than the actual film itself! :eek:

I for one have never understood it! But to each his own I guess!

The 51GB TL discs are hanging out in China with the mythical $199 Chinese Hd-DVD players.

Maybe these variations Amir is speaking of have to do with exactly that, spin rate.

I just don't see any real advantage to increasing size and bandwith other than bragging rights over BR. One thing for sure is that pending that, BR will have no physical/programming advantage left, and the only hurdle to overcome for HD DVD would be studio support. It will take one defecting studio to change the ball game, after that it's status quo forever. And seeing how Samsung's Duo Player is now official, we can all see where this is going...

I don't see "bragging" rights as being the issue at all. The options would have been add 1GB per layer for 3x16GB->TL48, add 2gB per layer for 2x17GB->TL51, or maybe even add 3GB (more risk for dubious advantage) for 3x18GB->TL54.

The only tangible advantage would be in offering a "NOT-LESS" capacity to a potentially interested current BR only studio. Adding 14% to the layer capacity probably isn't stretching anything given reasonable conservatism with the original production specs. A year or so of production process optimization could easily free up that much space (same thing happened for SD DVD a number of years back).

To go beyond 3x17GB probably wouldn't make much sense. If TL51 isn't a successful inducement, no reason to suppose TL54 would be, and it's probable TL54 would entail a lower yield than TL51 (that would definitely be a BRAGGING RIGHTS situation). To go with TL48 offers essentially no inducement at all, might just as well stay in bed with TL45. Equally, 49GB and 50GB don't make sense as they would have varying density layers and therefore be leaving capacity on the table.

My guess would be TL51 is actually a reasonably conservative step (meaning fairly risk free) that should do the job if the job can be done. At worst, it would open the door to higher capacities for SL and DL.

I see the x1.5 as being completely up in the air as Toshiba hasn't formally said a word about it -- it very definitely DID talk about TL51! So maybe X1.5 will end up in HD DVD's pocket, but I'm pretty sure TL51 will (as well as SL17 and DL34).

My 2 cents :)

I guess we'll find out if out HD DVD players can spin at 1.5x by firmware.
I remember seeing a spec sheet for the HD-DVD drives that are in the G1 players, and they're 2x drives, so physically, there is no problem with them being able to spin 1.5x. And I'm sure it would be nothing to write a firmware that would tell the drive to simply spin faster. Of course there would be a lot of other stuff required to make it work in the context of actually reading info off the disk and doing proper error correction at the accelerated rate, but I don't see why it couldn't be done if they wanted it done bad enough. And the drives in the G2 units are 4x, iirc, so same thing applies there.

Was TL45 part of the initial HD DVD specs? I thought it was but I'm not entirely sure.

- All G1 players have drives that can do at least 2X reads.
- None of these drives have listed 17 GB layer support or 3-layer support. However, I believe the initial TL45 tests were done using modded existing mechanisms.
- Amir claims 1.5X was part of the initial TL51 demo.
- TL45 was never part of the HD DVD specs. It wasn't even submitted for approval. However, TL51 is now formally under study by the DVD Forum. If ultimately passed, it could be passed within the year (or not).

I personally have little interest in 1.5X. If it were possible and compatible with current machines then that'd be a bonus, but I'd be more interested in 51 GB support. HD DVD's issue isn't really bandwidth, it's disc length for that 0.01% of movies out there that over 3.5 hours long. Actually TL45 would be perfectly fine, but they chose to submit TL51 instead. Hopefully that means it's actually viable for existing players.

Or perhaps they're actually mainly targetting DL34 for existing players. That'd probably actually be fine for most of those 0.01% of movies out there that are uber long.

As efficient as the codecs for hddvd are are don't see any real advantage of TL-51 over TL-45 since a second disc could be used for all th extras. If it is faster to produce 45gb discs I say that would be the way to go. The interesting thing is Toshiba Canada and Europe both claim TL-45 support from the 2nd gen players.

The 51GB TL discs are hanging out in China with the mythical $199 Chinese Hd-DVD players.

Are they???

And you are here BECAUSE???? Go back to your blu-ray hole that was why it was dug out for you, IN A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THIS WEBSITE!!

The 51GB TL discs are hanging out in China with the mythical $199 Chinese Hd-DVD players.


Off with you peasant.

The 51GB TL discs are hanging out in China with the mythical $199 Chinese Hd-DVD players.
Hmm, by the end of the summer, at latest by Christmas, $199 Chinese HD-DVD players will be way overpriced, since the A2 can now be had for $300 or so.

If wanted to be really partisan, i would poke fun at some of the BD vaporware and shifting timelines, but that's not what I'm here for.

If 51GB TL disks are feasible, then I'm all for it, as long as they play on my HD-A2. if the HD-DVD camp allows their release but they don't play on the G1 or G2 machines, then a lot of negative feedback will be generated.

I couldn't care less about having to swap disks after 3 hours, so if the only benefit 51GB TL disks is that a movie doesn't need two disks when it is 4 hours long, then don't bother. Just give me two disks.

IMHO, YMMV.

shinksma

- However, I believe the initial TL45 tests were done using modded existing mechanisms.

I've never run across anything saying this -- not that it's not possible, however since Amir was told by Toshiba technical staff (he said this last Fall) that TL45 was compatible with G1 players, I'm inclined to doubt the mechanisms were non standard -- outside of a firmware flash that is.

I'll bet the TL HD DVDs are approved before Bluray gets it's standard player profiles fixed up on October 31st. :p

I'll bet the TL HD DVDs are approved before Bluray gets it's standard player profiles fixed up on October 31st. :p
I highly doubt it.


I've never run across anything saying this -- not that it's not possible, however since Amir was told by Toshiba technical staff (he said this last Fall) that TL45 was compatible with G1 players, I'm inclined to doubt the mechanisms were non standard -- outside of a firmware flash that is.
I don't remember where I heard this, but there was no explanation as to what the modifications were. Perhaps all it was was a firmware flash, I dunno. The point though was that the triple-layer disc wouldn't work in a standard off-the-shelf player (not surprisingly).

Are they???

And you are here BECAUSE???? Go back to your blu-ray hole that was why it was dug out for you, IN A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THIS WEBSITE!!

ROTFL. I will go back to my hole, at least I can watch Disney, Sony/Columbia/Fox exclusive movies on real life BD 50GB disc.

Or perhaps they're actually mainly targetting DL34 for existing players. That'd probably actually be fine for most of those 0.01% of movies out there that are uber long.

Do you think a DL34 would be enough for a title like LOTR Extended 4 hour edition with a DD+ track?

ROTFL. I will go back to my hole, at least I can watch Disney, Sony/Columbia/Fox exclusive movies on real life BD 50GB disc.


Fox? Where's Fox?lol!

Fox has gone neutral, it doesn't release films on either format now.

ROTFL. I will go back to my hole, at least I can watch Disney, Sony/Columbia/Fox exclusive movies on real life BD 50GB disc.

Yeah, go do that, while we'll enjoy our Universal/Weinstein and the upcoming Matrix you won't see for another 6 months. And while you're at it, close the door of your bedroom so your parents can rest their sore eyes from looking at a dumb arse like you.

Do you think a DL34 would be enough for a title like LOTR Extended 4 hour edition with a DD+ track?

I don't know about you, but I will be extremely pissed if it comes with a DD+ track. I'd much rather have it on 2 discs than have low 10s VC-1 transfers and a DD+ track.

Here's what I find interesting. The majority of pre-October BD players will be "obsolete" if and when BD-J becomes finalized. OTOH, so will all current HD DVD players if and when TL discs are released. In my opinion, these are two major flaws in both formats but the good thing is they basically cancel each other out. Once Blu-ray gets BD-J and HD DVD goes TL, the playing field will pretty much even itself out. From there we shall see which format has what it takes to pull out a win.

Here's what I find interesting. The majority of pre-October BD players will be "obsolete" if and when BD-J becomes finalized. OTOH, so will all current HD DVD players if and when TL discs are released. In my opinion, these are two major flaws in both formats but the good thing is they basically cancel each other out. Once Blu-ray gets BD-J and HD DVD goes TL, the playing field will pretty much even itself out. From there we shall see which format has what it takes to pull out a win.

There is a flaw in your argumentation. We KNOW that the current BD players will be obsolete because of new hardware requirements that you cannot get through a firmware update. We DON'T know the requirements for HD DVD triple layer yet. There are actually hints that go in the direction, that the triple layer discs WILL PLAY on every HD DVD player from the 1 gen on (see TL 45GB, TL 34,5...).

So the correct argumentation is: most of the existing BD players WILL BE obsolete by the end of the year, while HD DVD players MIGHT become obsolete when the TL discs show up, but MOST LIKELY just need a firmware update and will work fine with the TL HD DVDs.

There is a flaw in your argumentation. We KNOW that the current BD players will be obsolete because of new hardware requirements that you cannot get through a firmware update. We DON'T know the requirements for HD DVD triple layer yet. There are actually hints that go in the direction, that the triple layer discs WILL PLAY on every HD DVD player from the 1 gen on (see TL 45GB, TL 34,5...).

That's just conjecture at this point. Odds are TL discs will NOT play on first-generation players.


So the correct argumentation is: most of the existing BD players WILL BE obsolete by the end of the year, while HD DVD players MIGHT become obsolete when the TL discs show up, but MOST LIKELY just need a firmware update and will work fine with the TL HD DVDs.
If you're gonna split hairs, the correct argumentation should be: most existing BD players will be slightly crippled, while HD DVD players might be obsolete. Frankly, not being able to access extras is not nearly as bad as not being able to play a triple-layer disc. Either way, it's not good for both formats.

That's just conjecture at this point. Odds are TL discs will NOT play on first-generation players.


So its conjecture when the NEC spec sheet for the first gen drive lists TL45? Try again

If you're gonna split hairs, the correct argumentation should be: most existing BD players will be slightly crippled, while HD DVD players might be obsolete. Frankly, not being able to access extras is not nearly as bad as not being able to play a triple-layer disc. Either way, it's not good for both formats.

I'll split hair once more and say that there is currently no information available to confirm that HD DVD players will not be able to access the 3rd layer, which, assuming they won't, could mean that the 1st two layers may be accessible and therefore all that might not be accessible are the extras, if placed on that 3rd layer, therefore NOT rendering HD DVD players obsolete any more than BD-J rendering current players obsolete...

Do you think a DL34 would be enough for a title like LOTR Extended 4 hour edition with a DD+ track?
benwaggoner already said it would be possible with DL30, even with a TrueHD track, but I'm thinking DL34 would just give it a bit more leeway. What I wanted to know is how much of that extra 4 GB would be usable for the movie itself and how much of it would be for support files.


I don't know about you, but I will be extremely pissed if it comes with a DD+ track. I'd much rather have it on 2 discs than have low 10s VC-1 transfers and a DD+ track.
I would be perfectly satisfied with a DD+ track as long as the video were near perfect, but see above. Note however that a TrueHD track would only be about 1.4 Mbps, which is about that of a stereo PCM track. It should also be noted that some DD+ tracks are 1.5 Mbps. I suspect they sound pretty damn good. With HD DVD, it isn't 448 Kbps DD we're talking about folks.


If you're gonna split hairs, the correct argumentation should be: most existing BD players will be slightly crippled, while HD DVD players might be obsolete. Frankly, not being able to access extras is not nearly as bad as not being able to play a triple-layer disc. Either way, it's not good for both formats.
Heh. "Slightly crippled".

All the BD players that cannot ever do proper PIP are obsolete as of Oct. 31, 2007.

DD+ would be ok as long as it is at a nice bitrate, like 1.5 mbps. Blu-Ray can get their standard DD 224 kbps or whatever non-PCM track they use.

I think most DD+ tracks on HD DVD are 1.5mbps and it delivers a truly amazing experience. We Were Soldiers is a prime example.

But on the LOTR 4 hour edition, wasn't the KK 3 hour movie with DD+ and no extras already almost maxed out on a DL30?

edit: I guess KK did have more extras than I remember because I just looked at the box and it had U Control.

Yes, King Kong was maxed out, but the claim from the MS guys is that VC-1 has gotten more efficient since King Kong was encoded.

And yes, King Kong does include U-control features.

P.S. I really dislike U-control as implemented on King Kong. I'd rather just have a plain extra, or else easier access to the U-control content.

I'll bet the TL HD DVDs are approved before Bluray gets it's standard player profiles fixed up on October 31st. :p
:D

- All G1 players have drives that can do at least 2X reads.It is nice that the drives can do that for DL (not sure about reliability with TL), but other parts would need to have their requirements raised for 1.5x to be useful. The only reason to go to 1.5x minimum instead of 1.0x minimum is to allow more bandwidth. That means upping the specs elsewhere. My proposal was to leave the video bitrate limit at 29.4 and up the overall limit so that audio, PiP and things didn't lower the peak video bitrate until they hit some amount, if that would help them over upping the video limit. The advantage is that players wouldn't have to do any higher bitrate for video than they do now, but those other things also wouldn't eat into the video bandwidth like they do now (where BB only got something like 19Mbps peak for video because of other things).
I personally have little interest in 1.5X. If it were possible and compatible with current machines then that'd be a bonus, but I'd be more interested in 51 GB support. HD DVD's issue isn't really bandwidth, it's disc length for that 0.01% of movies out there that over 3.5 hours long.I disagree. They can always add a 2nd disc for space problems. But there isn't a similar solution for bandwidth problems. I bet if you asked most people who encode these movies they would tell you that bandwidth issues will cause them more problems than space issues. I know that some people like to just look at current releases and not consider some of the more difficult things that haven't been done yet. Amir wants people to believe that seamless branching won't be used like in the past, but I don't think the argument is logical at all. Studios want people who saw a movie in a theater as well as people who didn't see it in the theater to buy a disc release for it. Including both a different version than the theatrical as well as the theatrical and letting the user choose, using seamless branching, is one approach. Especially for lesser movies where they aren't going to be able to double dip as easily as they can with things like LOTR. I've seen a hint that we'll be getting "Bladerunner" with more than one version. If so, I'm guessing they would want to use seamless branching to do that. Both formats are capable of seamless branching, but it is a matter of the difficulty of doing it without degrading other things (since the bitrate limitations get much more stringent right before possibly jumping to the alternative branch and right before jumping back).

Amir has also mentioned that somebody will want to use seamless branching for something that we won't even realize. My guess is something to do with having multiple versions for multiple regions in order to save money, or something like that. Doing that could put more pressure on the codecs and the people doing the encoding to keep from degrading things. This is a business just like DIRECTV where HD started out getting a lot of priority and DVD where a lot of titles get very little allocated for encoding at this point. It makes sense that early on in a format war where trying to get things off the ground one or more studios would be willing to spend extra money to make sure quality was #1 that they might not be willing to spend after things have gotten off the ground. Codecs should get better, but they haven't done everything they will be asked to do going forward.

I think extra bandwidth would make HD DVD a better format than it is. Even DL34s could help a little at 1.0x spin rate if they change the bandwidth limitations for the players (and thus the content) slightly. If given a choice between them adding DL34s and 1.5x spin rate with more bandwidth to match and TL51s with the same 1.0x spin rate and the same bandwidth, I would take the DL34s and 1.5x spin rate. I think that would address more of the issues for encoding as encoding people are asked to do more difficult things (like tough 1.85:1 movies, encode in less time, seamlessly branched stuff, etc.).

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I would be in favor of them upping the bandwidth with 1.5x spin rate even if there wasn't a format war. I do wonder how many would still feel that there wouldn't be any real advantage to higher bandwidth if HD DVD was the only format and Toshiba was looking at changing the specs to have higher minimum bandwidth limitations for HD DVD players so content providers could use it. I think DVD would have been a better format if they had given content providers more bandwidth than they did and maybe the seamlessly branched version of LOTR could have still had a DTS track.

--Darin

Fox? Where's Fox?lol!


Come on you know, THE FOX IS IN DA HOLLLLEEEE with the Blu-Chicken

I disagree. They can always add a 2nd disc for space problems. But there isn't a similar solution for bandwidth problems. I bet if you asked most people who encode these movies they would tell you that bandwidth issues will cause them more problems than space issues.
I bet if you ask the average consumer, they couldn't care less if there were 3 lossless audio tracks on the disc. They'd much rather just have a single disc for one 4.5-hour movie.

Even for a 4.5-hour movie, people don't want to flip the disc, or switch to Disc B. In fact, I'm not even an average consumer - I'm an early adopter - and I would find having 2 discs for one movie extremely annoying.

Furthermore, 45 GB or 51 GB with 1.0X working on existing players is a way more practical solution than 51 GB with 1.5X requiring brand new players. Of course 51 GB with 1.5X on existing players with only a firmware update is even better but we may be asking for too much there. If 1.5X can be done on existing players then great, but if it can't without obsoleting current players, then I think that idea should be killed right now.

I bet if you ask the average consumer, they couldn't care less if there were 3 lossless audio tracks on the disc. They'd much rather just have a single disc for one 4.5-hour movie.If you ask the average consumer I think we all know they would prefer 480p or 720p at lower prices. VMD would probably be favored by them over either of these 2 formats if the price is lower by enough. Are you in favor of deferring to what the average consumer wants and will you push for all studios to support VMD if that is what consumers show a preference for?

And I am curious as to why you went off on the 3 lossless audio track thing? Why not address things like seamlessly branched releases of things like "Bladerunner" or a studio going from now giving the compressionist all the bandwidth, while later deciding to make them seamlessly branch things (which is more difficult to do without degradation), even for things where the user doesn't get a benefit?

Those who care about lossless generally only care about having one, just that it be the one they want. Even in cases of doing multiple lossless tracks, I highly doubt it is because anybody wants multiples, but because different people want different tracks. Much like a store doesn't carry small, medium, and large shirts because one person wants all 3, but because all 3 are desired by the group of potential customers.

--Darin

According to Amir and Cjplay (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7919140&&#post7919140), 1.5X is not necessary for seamless branching (even though it could make it easier).

However, the much more important point is to keep backwards compatibility with all existing HD DVD players. If 1.5X orphans 1st gen HD DVD players, then the idea should be killed.

According to Amir and Cjplay (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7919140&&#post7919140), 1.5X is not necessary for seamless branching (even though it could make it easier).First, Amir has taken the illogical position that studios won't want to use seamless branching like they did on DVD, I guess in some attempt to avoid giving a real answer to how they would do a seamlessly branched release of LOTR without degradation. When I asked Ben his first answer was that he didn't think LOTR could be done with seamless branching because of audio differences between the 2 versions, then when I pointed out that New Line released a DVD for it, but it didn't get DTS and one report was that the video quality was poor, I don't believe I ever got an answer as to how they would do it without any degradation due to the seamless branching limitations. I don't think Amir would need to deflect questions about how they would do it as if the studios won't want to do things like this, if they had a good answer. With much higher bandwidth limitations they would probably just say how they would do it, but as it is Amir doesn't seem willing to give the number for the bitrate limitations for each branch point. There are much more stringent limitations on what they have to work with when they do seamless branching than with non-seamless branched discs, which I think account for all of the 300+ releases they say have been done. I don't know of any HD DVDs that have seamless branching. MI:3 has seamed branching, but that isn't the same thing.

Second, that post by Cjplay has been used more than once in a way that makes it look like the HD DVD of "Polar Express" uses seamless branching. The reality is that what he discussed there is done on the DVD. It is pretty cool. When selecting the French soundtrack the tickets that Tom Hanks character punches are done in French. The HD DVD doesn't have that feature. Not that they couldn't do it, as that movie should have been one of the easiest to compress being clean animation and those scenes look like easy ones to compress, but it doesn't have the feature.

Also, Cjplay was in favor of my proposal to spin higher, while keeping the video limitation at 29.4Mbps and upping the bandwidth overall so that other things didn't eat into the video bitrate available, if they needed to do that to maintain compatibility.

They are both right that HD DVD supports seamless branching (as I've said before). Just like it supports doing 8 hours of video on a 30GB disc. The question isn't whether it can be done, but whether it can be done without degradation, for various cases. 1.5x isn't needed to use seamless branching, but it could mean that they wouldn't have to drop something to do it or degrade the video at certain points, for more difficult cases.
However, the much more important point is to keep backwards compatibility with all existing HD DVD players. If 1.5X orphans 1st gen HD DVD players, then the idea should be killed.I think the odds of them doing TL51 or 1.5x are close to zero if they aren't compatible with the XBOX360 add-on or the 2nd gen Toshiba players. But if it is only the HD-A1 and HD-XA1 that would have problems, I would be in favor of them making the change and then giving owners of those a kickback toward getting a newer player. It doesn't look to me like TL51 or 1.5x would be this year, so players should be cheaper and better by then.

My guess is that the odds of them going with 1.5x are under 20% and that they will be stuck with the decision they made long ago. If they could go back a couple of years and redo things I think the odds would be higher of having the minimum be 1.5x, but it is much different considering changing something like that this much into the game.

--Darin

Hindsight is always 20/20.