^^^ oh snap! nothing technical new here. :(

"Full resolution" means getting 1080 distinct (resolvable) lines per frame. The only time this does not happen is for the HDTVs that bob their frames. Just because you're getting a temporal artifact does not mean you are not seeing full resolution. Seeing combing almost guarantees you are getting full resolution. If, in fact, the TV bobbed instead of deinterlacing, then you would not get combing (since you'd get 60 frames of effective 540p).

When you place so much value on semantics, and are having a semantic argument about what someone meant, you should really make sure you at least know the definition of the words you're arguing about.

Anyway, once we've agreed on what the meaning of "is" is, we can probably have a meaningful conversation about this. Until then, people are just arguing at cross purposes.

Sorry, but if you are seeing temporal artifacts then you are almost certainly not seeing full resolution if you are talkling about 24p source. More specifically, the 1080 lines of the progressive frames (of the original image) are not resolvable to the degree possible if the proper progressive frames were being displayed.

- Tom

Sorry, but if you are seeing temporal artifacts then you are almost certainly not seeing full resolution if you are talkling about 24p source. More specifically, the 1080 lines of the progressive frames (of the original image) are not resolvable to the degree possible if the proper progressive frames were being displayed.

- Tom

This is typically exactly what is referred to as "temporal artifacting", however.

When discussing 1080p60 vs. 1080i60, and "resolution" is mentioned, it's likely to be understood as spatial resolution that's preserved on a 1080 progressive display, no?

... in fact no one has actually argued with the explanation I have given about that.


:eek::rolleyes::confused::eek::confused::eek::rolleyes::(

This is typically exactly what is referred to as "temporal artifacting", however.

When discussing 1080p60 vs. 1080i60, and "resolution" is mentioned, it's likely to be understood as spatial resolution that's preserved on a 1080 progressive display, no?

I'll let bkilian define his terms but when I see the word resolution I assume the ability of the human visual system to resolve the image, to get accurate information of the original scene. And that is certainly hindered by improperly matching even and odd fields from successive progressive frames, just as it is hindered by somehow just taking one of those 540 line fields and scaling it to 1080 as many displays do.

It is also hindered under most motion cases by motion adaptive or even motion compensating deinterlace as all algorithms I've seen will still filter a bit to hide those artifacts if it appears there is too much vertical detail and weave/combing effects are otherwise assumed.

Proper inverse telecine right in the decoder is the only way to really get full rez in my mind. And even that is true only when care has been taken in mastering to make sure that is possible. The first time you overlay a 60i video source or cut/edit/PIP in 60i mode you can introduce problems that are not easily reversible or handled by the deinterlacing chips of the TV's or early hidef players.

That's why we need 'force' modes where the user takes responsibility for displaying everything in 24p.

- Tom

I'll let bkilian define his terms but when I see the word resolution I assume the ability of the human visual system to resolve the image, to get accurate information of the original scene. And that is certainly hindered by improperly matching even and odd fields from successive progressive frames, just as it is hindered by somehow just taking one of those 540 line fields and scaling it to 1080 as many displays do.

It is also hindered under most motion cases by motion adaptive or even motion compensating deinterlace as all algorithms I've seen will still filter a bit to hide those artifacts if it appears there is too much vertical detail and weave/combing effects are otherwise assumed.

Proper inverse telecine right in the decoder is the only way to really get full rez in my mind. And even that is true only when care has been taken in mastering to make sure that is possible. The first time you overlay a 60i video source or cut/edit/PIP in 60i mode you can introduce problems that are not easily reversible or handled by the deinterlacing chips of the TV's or early hidef players.

That's why we need 'force' modes where the user takes responsibility for displaying everything in 24p.

- Tom
Sort of like Auto, Weave, and Bob modes on PC based DVD players and Video and Film modes on standard DVD players.:)

I'll let bkilian define his terms but when I see the word resolution I assume the ability of the human visual system to resolve the image, to get accurate information of the original scene. And that is certainly hindered by improperly matching even and odd fields from successive progressive frames, just as it is hindered by somehow just taking one of those 540 line fields and scaling it to 1080 as many displays do.

It is also hindered under most motion cases by motion adaptive or even motion compensating deinterlace as all algorithms I've seen will still filter a bit to hide those artifacts if it appears there is too much vertical detail and weave/combing effects are otherwise assumed.

Proper inverse telecine right in the decoder is the only way to really get full rez in my mind. And even that is true only when care has been taken in mastering to make sure that is possible. The first time you overlay a 60i video source or cut/edit/PIP in 60i mode you can introduce problems that are not easily reversible or handled by the deinterlacing chips of the TV's or early hidef players.

That's why we need 'force' modes where the user takes responsibility for displaying everything in 24p.

- Tom

I certainly agree that it's a frame that's got artifacts.

However, "loss of resolution" due to something like bob deinterlacing, pixels from one field that don't exist in the temporal domain due to interlaced source material that must be estimated via motion adapted/compensated deinterlacing, etc... literally have less original pixels than the source.

In the case we are discussing, all the pixels are still there, however they have the potential of being combined incorrectly as a result of incorrect (or non-present) IVTC in the display.

Hence, when discussing 60i vs 60p as a player output format (as Ruined was), it's perfectly acceptable to state that 60i preserves all the resolution that 60p would for 24p source material. This is true.

If one wants to discuss the failure of a display device to correctly handle telecined 24p source material, then the issue is bad IVTC. Why muddy the issue of spatial resolution in a 60i vs 60p output stream when it's just as easy (and more accurate) to discuss IVTC?

Again, I certainly agree with you that there is an issue in such a frame. What I disagree with is the premise that just because Amir stated that "60i gives you all the resolution of 60p and that if you have issues with judder you need a new TV anyway", that you should attribute "using 60i from a deck means less resolution".

As I say, people are confused enough about i vs p as it is. I just spent quite of bit of time in the last week answering emails and phone calls helping him to understand the issues of with his purchase of a HD DVD player. He was really concerned if he was getting 60p output, if his TV could handle itm did he need an upgraded AVR, should he buy an A20 vs an A30, etc...

I guess this is a dumb question, but I thought the display resolutions were one of the following:

720p30
1080i60
1080p30
1080p24

I was unaware there was a 1080p60. Am I wrong or is the 1080p60 that's being discussed really 1080p30?

Thanks

I guess this is a dumb question, but I thought the display resolutions were one of the following:

720p30
1080i60
1080p30
1080p24

I was unaware there was a 1080p60. Am I wrong or is the 1080p60 that's being discussed really 1080p30?

Thanks

You aren't, really. The ATSC broadcast standards don't define a 60p. And they may not even define 24p, but by nature of it being avaialable source material on HD media, handling it properly is nice.

The issue of 60p is really only marketing. Given that just about all modern HD displays are progressive by nature (i.e. flat panels or PJ's), the opportunity to sell "accepts true 60p" as a feature better than "only accepts 60i" really doesn't buy you anything. Except the opportunity to replace your source and switching equipment with something that can also handle 60p, for no real visible benefit.

As a matter of fact, 60p forces judder to be locked in. A display that is able to IVTC 60i and display at a multiple of 24 will likely not be able to do the same if the signal is 60p incoming...

You aren't, really. The ATSC broadcast standards don't define a 60p. And they may not even define 24p, but by nature of it being avaialable source material on HD media, handling it properly is nice.FYI what is in the ATSC standard (A53-Part-4-2007.pdf) (http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-2007.zip) for frame rates are:

frame_rate_code: 1 = 23.976 Hz, 2 = 24 Hz, 4 = 29.97 Hz, 5 = 30 Hz, 7 = 59.94 Hz, 8 = 60 Hz

See Table 6.2 on page 10 for better explanation as to what resolution & frame rate combos are defined.

I certainly agree that it's a frame that's got artifacts.

However, "loss of resolution" due to something like bob deinterlacing, pixels from one field that don't exist in the temporal domain due to interlaced source material that must be estimated via motion adapted/compensated deinterlacing, etc... literally have less original pixels than the source.

In the case we are discussing, all the pixels are still there, however they have the potential of being combined incorrectly as a result of incorrect (or non-present) IVTC in the display.

Hence, when discussing 60i vs 60p as a player output format (as Ruined was), it's perfectly acceptable to state that 60i preserves all the resolution that 60p would for 24p source material. This is true.

Sorry but while it is true in theory it is still today rarely true in practce.


If one wants to discuss the failure of a display device to correctly handle telecined 24p source material, then the issue is bad IVTC. Why muddy the issue of spatial resolution in a 60i vs 60p output stream when it's just as easy (and more accurate) to discuss IVTC?

Again, I certainly agree with you that there is an issue in such a frame. What I disagree with is the premise that just because Amir stated that "60i gives you all the resolution of 60p and that if you have issues with judder you need a new TV anyway", that you should attribute "using 60i from a deck means less resolution".
...

While I seem to have jumped into that discussion I was only making a technical point about resolution loss due to the interlaced effect. I'm not taking a position on what Amir may have said or meant, except maybe about the ice cream. ;)

So I'll let this drop now.

- Tom

I guess this is a dumb question, but I thought the display resolutions were one of the following:

720p30
1080i60
1080p30
1080p24

I was unaware there was a 1080p60. Am I wrong or is the 1080p60 that's being discussed really 1080p30?

Thanks

All right, time for a history lesson kids. Let's go back to the very beginning of television. Philo Farnsworth was... no, wait... Let's fast-forward a bit. When standards were being set for NTSC television, they designed it to work on the electrical systems used in the US, which all run at 60Hz. I'm not going to go into all the myriad of reasons they used to reach reach these conclusions, but it was eventually decided that the best system for quality and bandwidth would transmit 30 full frames per second, splitting each one into halves and transmitting the halves separately (which we all know as interlacing).

Great! Now we have our high quality NTSC system up and running and all is well--- WHAT? They want color now? Well, crap we can't go back to the drawing boards on this one. How about we just slow the signal down to 1/1.001 of it's original speed and shove all the color information into the part of the signal that doesn't show up on-screen (part of the signal tells the electron gun in the CRT to re-align to the top of the screen after it draws a field, some of this is wasted bandwidth, so they used it). This slowing down is where we get all the weird frame-rates: 29.97 (30), 59.94 (60), 23.976 (24). And keep in mind that ALL VIDEO SYSTEMS now run on these weird frame-rates (i.e., your 24p encoded HD DVDs and Blu-ray; if you set the player to output the native 24p stream it will send it out at 23.98p, because that what your TV understands). This all becomes less and less of a concern as we steadily move into a digital world. Hopefully soon, we can leave NTSC where it belongs: in the past.

Now, keeping all that in mind, let's move on to HDTVs. Even though it is no longer necessary to keep a television's refresh rate tied to our electrical systems (still 60Hz) that is exactly what they decided to do. So, this is a long way of getting to this point, but ALL HDTVs run at 60Hz. So your list should actually look like this:


720p60 (there are no 720p30 sets or sources (except JVC's GR-HD1))
1080i60
1080p60

Yes, I know that there are projectors and HD sets that handle 24p by converting it to a multiple (48Hz, 72Hz, 120Hz) but ALL of those sets are also native 60p.

Now keep in mind that there are no sources of 1080p60 footage. None. They don't exist. There are no cameras that shoot that, and there are no broadcast standards in place for transmission of that frame-rate and resolution. If you have a 1080p60 set, the only 60p footage you're going to be sending it is 720p60 (sports mostly). Everything else will come in the form of 1080i60, 1080p30 (there are cameras that shoot this, but I haven't heard of them being used professionally yet on anything) or 1080p24 via a converted 1080i60 or 1080p60 or 1080p30 stream.

Outside of videogames 1080p60 content doesn't exist. And I doubt content makers will begin to care about it for at least another decade.

I believe I read that the NiN: Live Beside you in Time disc uses 1080p/30 and is considered an outlier as a result.

FYI what is in the ATSC standard (A53-Part-4-2007.pdf) (http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-2007.zip) for frame rates are:



See Table 6.2 on page 10 for better explanation as to what resolution & frame rate combos are defined.


Right. 1080p60 (which is what the poster to which I was replying to spelled out, andIabbreviated as 60p) is not an ATSC standard.

Sorry but while it is true in theory it is still today rarely true in practce.

An I'm all for identifying where that failure is. And describing it appropriately. ;)


While I seem to have jumped into that discussion I was only making a technical point about resolution loss due to the interlaced effect. I'm not taking a position on what Amir may have said or meant, except maybe about the ice cream. ;)

So I'll let this drop now.

- Tom

Does the flavor of ice cream change the equation?

And keep in mind that ALL VIDEO SYSTEMS now run on these weird frame-ratesNot ALL, just ones that are 60Hz based. PAL and SECAM aren't concerned in any way.


Hopefully soon, we can leave NTSC where it belongs: in the past.Unfortunately, the past will still need to be viewed, mixed with digital and HD contents even broadcasted, possibly forever...



Now keep in mind that there are no sources of 1080p60 footage. None. They don't exist. There are no cameras that shoot thatSlo-Mo cameras shoots @ 1080i100/120, or 1080p50/60 some at even higher frame rate and are used daily on sports. Though I agree they aren't intended to be broadcasted as is (and are not), but they do exists !
On VTR's side, Sony will start selling the SRW5800 at the end of this year, capable of recording 1080p50/60.


Outside of videogames 1080p60 content doesn't exist. And I doubt content makers will begin to care about it for at least another decade.I totally agree.

I believe I read that the NiN: Live Beside you in Time disc uses 1080p/30 and is considered an outlier as a result.

I stand corrected :)

Once again I think the context of what Amir said is pretty obvious and in fact no one has actually argued with the explanation I have given about that.

And what thread have you been reading? :confused:

Instead they simply ignore that explanation, ignore the context of what Amir said, and than state as a fact that Amir did not mean that.

Actually, the one that seems to be ignoring things is you. Likewise, you are stating as a fact what Amir meant.


It would almost be funny if it wasn't for the fact that it has gone on for 6 days straight.


That's because you keep bringing it up and beating the dead horse. Perhaps to have the last word? I don't know, but the last 4 or 5 of your posts on this subject have basically said the same thing. You've added nothing new?


bkilian, lets look at the context of the paragraph that Amir posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. I have yet to see a better explanation that doesn't ignore certain statements that he made.

You know what, you're absolutely right. The convoluted thought process you used is clearly what he meant because he can't possibly have meant the simpler and more direct explanation given. Occam's Razor? Naw.

And, before you bring it up: I'm not smearing you or attacking you. :rolleyes:

Not ALL, just ones that are 60Hz based. PAL and SECAM aren't concerned in any way.

true, I stand corrected again.

Unfortunately, the past will still need to be viewed, mixed with digital and HD contents even broadcasted, possibly forever...

good point, though I think all content that now exists as analogue NTSC (and PAL and SECAM and film, for that matter) will eventually be converted into a digital form, with or without the consent of the content's owners (thank you, torrents). It's already happened with most movies as well as virtually all television shows in the past 5-10 years. And it's not like there's going to be a great deal of analogue video production in the future, aside from creating an 'old-fashioned' effect for certain shots or something. Films will continue to be shot on film for another century, at least ones with budgets in excess of ≈$300,000. For anything less than that, there's little reason not to shoot in HD now, and its advantages will only continue to grow.

Slo-Mo cameras shoots @ 1080i100/120, or 1080p50/60 some at even higher frame rate and are used daily on sports. Though I agree they aren't intended to be broadcasted as is (and are not), but they do exists !

I didn't realize they had that. I was under the impression that they were all still using 720p for sports broadcasts.

On VTR's side, Sony will start selling the SRW5800 at the end of this year, capable of recording 1080p50/60.

I hadn't heard of that. Interesting, I wonder if the intended use is for actual 1080p50/60 production or maybe 3D production (since that's going to start getting big in the next 5 years, whether consumers care about it or not) or just slow-mo stuff like you mentioned.

And now that you've brought that to my attention, I've remembered that the RED One camera that is--- I was going to say "coming out soon" but a quick google search shows me that the damn thing has been released!

Well, there you go. A 1080p60 camera. Hell, I guess that could be a 4K 60p camera if you could figure out how to record the signal. Maybe 4 of those SRW5800's running in tandem? :eek: Okay, probably not..... yet.

I totally agree.

And I agree with your agreement. Huzzah!

And what thread have you been reading? :confused:

Actually, the one that seems to be ignoring things is you. Likewise, you are stating as a fact what Amir meant.

That's because you keep bringing it up and beating the dead horse. Perhaps to have the last word? I don't know, but the last 4 or 5 of your posts on this subject have basically said the same thing. You've added nothing new?

You know what, you're absolutely right. The convoluted thought process you used is clearly what he meant because he can't possibly have meant the simpler and more direct explanation given. Occam's Razor? Naw.

And, before you bring it up: I'm not smearing you or attacking you. :rolleyes:

dude, just ignore him at this point. He's intentionally being obtuse about this and is not willing to acknowledge anything that is not a confirmation of his broken logic. The only response he'll give at this point will be to take one of your sentences out of context and use it to "prove" that Amir thinks "most HDTVs can properly inverse telecine a 1080i60 signal" even though he never wrote those words.

It's like trying to tear down a brick wall with your bare hands; you might get through eventually, but will it really be worth the effort? Especially when you could just walk around said brick wall and avoid/ignore the unpleasantness altogether ;)

As a matter of fact, 60p forces judder to be locked in. A display that is able to IVTC 60i and display at a multiple of 24 will likely not be able to do the same if the signal is 60p incoming...Just curious but which displays are like that?


That's because you keep bringing it up and beating the dead horse.Only because other posters kept bringing it up and it doesn't make much sense to bring up a topic if you think it is beating a dead horse.


It's like trying to tear down a brick wall with your bare hands; you might get through eventually, but will it really be worth the effort?Did you even disagree with what I told you in my last post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11872731&postcount=1246)? For instance if you want I can list some 1080p displays that do better with a 1080p60 video signal than with a 1080i60 video signal from 24 fps video. Also if you are curious this month's edition of Home Theater magazine tested 74 HDTVs on whether they did bob de-interlacing, weave de-interlacing, or inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal from 24 fps video.

Just curious but which displays are like that?

Only because other posters kept bringing it up and it doesn't make much sense to bring up a topic if you think it is beating a dead horse.

Did you even disagree with what I told you in my last post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11872731&postcount=1246)? For instance if you want I can list some 1080p displays that do better with a 1080p60 video signal than with a 1080i60 video signal from 24 fps video. Also if you are curious this month's edition of Home Theater magazine tested 74 HDTVs on whether they did bob de-interlacing, weave de-interlacing, or inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal from 24 fps video.
OK everybody, give RP the privilege of having the last word - please?

why don't you guys just start a dedicated "never-ending argument with richard paul" thread...:D

Right. 1080p60 (which is what the poster to which I was replying to spelled out, andIabbreviated as 60p) is not an ATSC standard.Sure, no problem with the clarification. Nice to infuse this thread with some real facts. ;)

Sometimes for sports 720p60 is nice. But the new 120 Hz refresh displays with motion vector interpolation may make this not as necessary. :)

OK everybody, give RP the privilege of having the last word - please?

Done.

Sometimes for sports 720p60 is nice. But the new 120 Hz refresh displays with motion vector interpolation may make this not as necessary. :)
I've yet to see a compelling demo of motion vector interpolation really helping with cinematic content. It was semi-useful for streaming video, since the frame rates could drop into filmstrip territory. But even then it was mainly useful for slow motion like talking heads. The problem with motion interpolation is when you get motion moving above the Nyquist frequency of the original rate - think of a train wheels in 24p film once they start rotating at more than 12 Hz. Once something is moving at half the rate of the capture fps, it'll stand still. It goes a little faster, and starts going backwards.

All motion vector interpolation can do in those cases is make the wheels going backwards do so more smoothly, which is a very weird effect.

The main value I see in 120 Hz is that it's a multiple of all the input frame rates: 24x5, 30x4, and 60x2 all = 120. So you can display any NTSC rate input judder free.

OK everybody, give RP the privilege of having the last word - please?

Boomark it through, because I'm willing to put down a few dollars that sometime in the future, he'll bring this up again, point to this thread and say, "See, I was right about this in the past, no one argued with me." :p

jdg345, it is rather hypocritical of you to say that I am beating a dead horse when you are the one that continues to make comments like that.

I've yet to see a compelling demo of motion vector interpolation really helping with cinematic content. It was semi-useful for streaming video, since the frame rates could drop into filmstrip territory. But even then it was mainly useful for slow motion like talking heads. The problem with motion interpolation is when you get motion moving above the Nyquist frequency of the original rate - think of a train wheels in 24p film once they start rotating at more than 12 Hz. Once something is moving at half the rate of the capture fps, it'll stand still. It goes a little faster, and starts going backwards.

All motion vector interpolation can do in those cases is make the wheels going backwards do so more smoothly, which is a very weird effect.

The main value I see in 120 Hz is that it's a multiple of all the input frame rates: 24x5, 30x4, and 60x2 all = 120. So you can display any NTSC rate input judder free.

Agreed that motion vector interpolation can't do much with fast motion from 24p source. Curiously, if the source frame rate was fast enough then it might be possible to do it for most motion within the ability of human visual system motion tracking capabilities. This sort of has the sad but funny corollary that motion vector interpolation only works at rates where you don't really need it anymore. ;)

- Tom

PS - I also once wrote one version of a motion compensating deinterlace routine that would often make thrown basketballs completely disappear because the motion comp functions were happier with the nice cleanly matched repeated floor tiles and no messy small fast moving objects. I don't trust that stuff. ;)

good point, though I think all content that now exists as analogue NTSC (and PAL and SECAM and film, for that matter) will eventually be converted into a digital form, with or without the consent of the content's owners (thank you, torrents).The conversion to digital happened more than 15 years ago with the introduction of CCD cameras and digital VTRs (D1/D2/Digital Betacam/...) but still needed to be backward compatible with analog tapes and devices. Almost everything is in digital domain today, even if it's still SD.
Either analog or digital, it's the same NTSC or PAL system components.



I didn't realize they had that. I was under the impression that they were all still using 720p for sports broadcasts.Even if a channel is broadcasting in 720p50/60, you'll still need a 2x/3x Slo-Mo camera to avoid judder / sluggishness when playing back at normal speed



I hadn't heard of that. Interesting, I wonder if the intended use is for actual 1080p50/60 production or maybe 3D production (since that's going to start getting big in the next 5 years, whether consumers care about it or not) or just slow-mo stuff like you mentioned.Most likely slo-mo stuff but for cinema, post-production and archival purpose. Broadcasters already use hard-drives for instant access/edit/broadcast.



And now that you've brought that to my attention, I've remembered that the RED One camera that is--- I was going to say "coming out soon" but a quick google search shows me that the damn thing has been released!

Well, there you go. A 1080p60 camera. Hell, I guess that could be a 4K 60p camera if you could figure out how to record the signal. Maybe 4 of those SRW5800's running in tandem? :eek: Okay, probably not..... yet.Yeah, not yet... RED camera is limited to 30fps when running in 4K.

Yeah, not yet... RED camera is limited to 30fps when running in 4K.

I know you said "not yet", but for others looking on, this is because of a firmware limitation thus far. The sensor on the RED is capable of 60fps when scanned at full 4K res.

There's discussion of enabling up to 120fps when only scaning a 2K window of the RED sensor.

That thing is one seriously cool peice of hardware.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled program.

I want a RED so bad!
Its still way out of my price range especially with the editing system capable of handling it. But it's a bargain for what it does. A huge leap forward towards making quality HD and 24p recording accessable to indies!

The slo mo capabilities are insane. I worked on a couple of music vids shooting film and we used the trick of speeding up the music 2x and having the band lip synch it. You record at 48fps and slow it down and it looks amazing. We tried the same thing with a Canon XL2 shooting 60i and slowing it down. Not near as smooth.
This Red is something else!

Jim Jannard is a saint!

The conversion to digital happened more than 15 years ago with the introduction of CCD cameras and digital VTRs (D1/D2/Digital Betacam/...) but still needed to be backward compatible with analog tapes and devices. Almost everything is in digital domain today, even if it's still SD.

Right, that's essentially what I was getting at. That there is virtually no professional production being done TODAY on analogue video. I stress the present heavily because I started working in reality TV about 5 years ago and I can promise you that at least Beta SP was still getting some heavy use up until very, very recently. The upsurge in HDTVs in the past few years has finally prompted networks to heavily invest in the new technology, leaving both analogue and digital standard-def equipment probably locked up in a dirty closet somewhere. But while I was working on (please don't send me nasty PMs) 'Renovate My Family' and 'Trading Spouses', we were shooting 'Renovate' on Beta SP and 'Trading' on our newer DigiBeta equipment. Meanwhile, we were trying out Sony's IMX format on a couple of new shows, I believe 'My Big, Fat Obnoxious' Fiancé' (again, sorry) and 'My Big, Fat Obnoxious Boss' (cancelled after 2 episodes). Of course, originating on analogue in this case is moot, as it is edited digitally and then mastered to DigiBeta in the end.

Of course, now it's HD or bust for network TV.

Either analog or digital, it's the same NTSC or PAL system components.

Well, NTSC and PAL are analogue only. The standard def digital systems we have today (DigiBeta, etc) are based on the specs of those two formats, but that does not mean that they record an NTSC or PAL signal. On the contrary, they record a completely digital signal; just ones and zeros like any other piece of digital information. And it stays that way until it is played back through a digital-to-analogue converter into one of the analogue formats. And it is a completely arbitrary choice which one you convert it to.

For example, let's look at DVDs. The only difference between an 'NTSC' DVD and a 'PAL' DVD is the resolution and frame-rate. Both are encoded with MPEG-2, but the one bound for region 1 systems is 720x480 (okay, it's actually either 640x480 [4:3] or 720x404 [16:9]) @29.97fps, whereas the one bound for region 2 systems is 720x576@25fps. You put either one of those in a universal DVD player, and it will convert that digital signal back to whatever analogue signal you want. But if you play it in your PC, no such conversion is necessary, as it is an all-digital environment. And if NTSC and PAL disappeared from the earth tomorrow (from the second coming of Jesus or something?) the MPEG-2 encode on that DVD would still fully usable and accessible in our all digital world.

I realize I'm splitting some very fine hairs here, but I just want to clear up a common misconception here (and I'm not saying you were guilty of this misconception or accusing you of propagating it): There is no such thing as NTSC or PAL (or SECAM) when you are talking about the digital realm. Period.

Even if a channel is broadcasting in 720p50/60, you'll still need a 2x/3x Slo-Mo camera to avoid judder / sluggishness when playing back at normal speed

no argument, we were talking about 1080p cameras that are capable of that, of which I was not aware.

Yeah, not yet... RED camera is limited to 30fps when running in 4K.

Lame..... what good is it then? :D

I want a RED so bad!
Its still way out of my price range especially with the editing system capable of handling it. But it's a bargain for what it does. A huge leap forward towards making quality HD and 24p recording accessable to indies!

The slo mo capabilities are insane. I worked on a couple of music vids shooting film and we used the trick of speeding up the music 2x and having the band lip synch it. You record at 48fps and slow it down and it looks amazing. We tried the same thing with a Canon XL2 shooting 60i and slowing it down. Not near as smooth.
This Red is something else!

Jim Jannard is a saint!

Was that "band" The Beastie Boys? :p

Seriously though, yeah I would give one of my kidneys for a RED, an SRW5800 and a set of 35mm lenses. Also, some medical treatment for my kidney-hole.

Was that "band" The Beastie Boys? :p

Seriously though, yeah I would give one of my kidneys for a RED, an SRW5800 and a set of 35mm lenses. Also, some medical treatment for my kidney-hole.

"So whatcha want"? I think that was more like 72fps and must have sounded ridiculous while they were filming! lol

That was inspiration for sure. 48fps is used a lot in MV these days.

I just sold my last 16mm camera.A Canon Scoopic M.
The think I miss most though was my Cinema Products GSMO.
ENG style,Crystal sync to 64fps, 400 ft mags and two Ultra t T1.3 primes !
I could kick myself for that.

I dont miss the bolexes or K3s. I had a K# with a tobin motor and did a S16 conversion by hand. Those things were a pain.

I'm hoping the RED will drive HD 24p camera prices down ,all down the line.

Well, NTSC and PAL are analogue only. The standard def digital systems we have today (DigiBeta, etc) are based on the specs of those two formats, but that does not mean that they record an NTSC or PAL signal. On the contrary, they record a completely digital signal; just ones and zeros like any other piece of digital information. And it stays that way until it is played back through a digital-to-analogue converter into one of the analogue formats. And it is a completely arbitrary choice which one you convert it to.Well, you're absolutely true but (;)) since they're based on their most important specs (line count, frame rate, interlaced), it's not really an infamy to still call them NTSC or PAL in digital domain, even if it's not entirely true.
What's true is :
- A digital 480i60 VCR can feed an NTSC TV not a PAL one.
- A digital 576i50 VCR can feed an PAL TV not a NTSC one.
- A 480i60 Digital Betacam VTR is not compatible with a 576i50 Digital Betacam VTR, either in analog (composite or YUV) or purely digital (SDI).

That is why Sony made 2 distinctive ranges of Digital Betacam recorders, the DVW-5XX and the DVW-5XXP (P for PAL)




For example, let's look at DVDs. The only difference between an 'NTSC' DVD and a 'PAL' DVD is the resolution and frame-rate. Both are encoded with MPEG-2, but the one bound for region 1 systems is 720x480 (okay, it's actually either 640x480 [4:3] or 720x404 [16:9]) @29.97fps, whereas the one bound for region 2 systems is 720x576@25fps. You put either one of those in a universal DVD player, and it will convert that digital signal back to whatever analogue signal you want. But if you play it in your PC, no such conversion is necessary, as it is an all-digital environment.Well, I'm not sure about that...
Resolution and frame-rate are big differences.
You can't convert a NTSC DVD to PAL (and vice versa) that easily. Any random universal DVD player set to PAL will output a NTSC DVD to PAL60, wich is a trick to fool non-NTSC TV sets. PAL60 is not really PAL, neither NTSC. It's a mix of both.

I would say they need to correct this issue by re-authoring all the discs with the special features promised on the box and then do a free exchange of the discs. This would be the only thing they can do to save face in my opinion. Could it be that they had planned to release all of those extras while they were working on the Blu-ray version before the 150 mill incentive deal turned Paramount HD-DVD exclusive? They did have a Blu-ray version in the works after all..

Good lord, I don't know of a bigger fanboy for bluray on here.

Really, each post reaches further and further.

The fabled 150m deal will be sung from blue rooftops for the next several decades, won't it?

From the Insider's Thread:


Originally Posted by Jeff Williams
Your assumption is correct. I've owned the XA1, XA2, and A35. The XA1 and XA2 were both hooked up via 6-channel analog. I always felt the LFE was weak. I recently upgraded to an Onkyo 875 and have had both the XA2 and A35 hooked up to it. The XA2 was doing the decoding internally and sending PCM to the 875 and the A35 was sending the signal via bitstream to the 875. Hands down, the bitstream to the 875 was superior. I know we've all argued this point time and time again, but you just have to hear it.
That's the perfect way to describe it Jeff. On my HD-A1, the bass always feels like it should be more. The bass on Xbox Live movies on the 360 via optical is damn high compared to my HD DVD's.


Specifically with LFE there have been issues with some AVR's not applying the correct +10dB boost to the LFE channel. In some cases the option is not enabled by default, and in others the option on the AVR was not even available.

My Pioneer Elite suffered from the latter, and after a firmware upgrade it made a big difference.

More detailed discussion is in the Receivers forum, but in a nutshell, the LFE channel of a surround mix is expected to have a +10dB boost applied to the LFE channel. Just about all AVR's get this correct on bitstreams. But with HDMI, this was one of the bumps on the road to implementation.

From the Insider's Thread:

Specifically with LFE there have been issues with some AVR's not applying the correct +10dB boost to the LFE channel. In some cases the option is not enabled by default, and in others the option on the AVR was not even available.

My Pioneer Elite suffered from the latter, and after a firmware upgrade it made a big difference.

More detailed discussion is in the Receivers forum, but in a nutshell, the LFE channel of a surround mix is expected to have a +10dB boost applied to the LFE channel. Just about all AVR's get this correct on bitstreams. But with HDMI, this was one of the bumps on the road to implementation.
Hmmmm... Just to be sure that I got this right:

(1) Some receivers apply the +10dB boost to the LFE channel always.
(2) Some receivers have an option to apply the boost.
(3) Some receivers never do it.
(4) Some receivers do it with bitstream but not with PCM.

Right? So what is the *correct* way for a receiver to handle this? And another question: How about analog input? Should a receiver apply a +10dB boost there, too? Or is it the task of the source device to do it when outputting analog?

Thank you!

Hmmmm... Just to be sure that I got this right:

(1) Some receivers apply the +10dB boost to the LFE channel always.

I don't remember any specific discussions of AVR's that fell in to this category, but I believe it would be considered a faulty implementation. Although it would be correct configuration for most movie HDM that is mastered -10dB on the LFE channel, some audio sources (such as SACD or DVD-A) may NOT be mastered with that configuration.

(2) Some receivers have an option to apply the boost.

Yes. I believe several Denon models do. As do the Pioneers with the correct firmware. Not sure about the Onkyos and Yamahas.

(3) Some receivers never do it.
If you mean for all configurations, no. I think just about all AVR's do DD and DTS bitstrams correctly. It's the new PCM via HDMI that is problematic. (I'll admit to not following the discussions of new recievers supporting DD+, TrueHD, DTS-MA, etc...)

(4) Some receivers do it with bitstream but not with PCM.

Yes. Again, some existing AVR's have corrected via firmware. Also please see my caveat regarding the newest codecs.


Right? So what is the *correct* way for a receiver to handle this? And another question: How about analog input? Should a receiver apply a +10dB boost there, too? Or is it the task of the source device to do it when outputting analog?

Thank you!

The "Right Thing To Do" is to make this an option. The reason being that movie sources typically expect the boost, while some other audio sources (SACD & DVD-A) may not.

Given the above, it's probably also sensible to default the option to "on", if only because movie usage probably outnumbers other audio sources usage of PCM by 100-to-1.

It also would be useful for AVR's to allow the option to be configured on a per-input basis. That way my HD DVD player can always be boosted, and my HD Audio deck on a separate input can be non-boosted, without having to twiddle the configuration.

Finally, I believe that the boost is expected on analog as well. It is the dynamic range necessary on the LFE channel that exceeds the ability of an analog connection to represent it if transported at full-level.

I hope this helps. Many more specifics have been discussed in the audio forum here. Folks there were a great help in diagnosing this, and led to me getting my AVR upgraded.

(There's also good reason to not try and 'fix' this by simply boosting your subwoofer channel by +10dB).

Thanks, Steve. Makes sense now.

Thanks, Steve. Makes sense now.

Sure thing. I wonder if this accounts for any of the variability folks are reporting with Transformers...?

(There's also good reason to not try and 'fix' this by simply boosting your subwoofer channel by +10dB).

I did this on my Panasonic XR57. Infact I still have it at +15 but the bass is weak from my HD A1.

I did this on my Panasonic XR57. Infact I still have it at +15 but the bass is weak from my HD A1.

Well, if you are doing any bass redirection from your other channels, then you are technicaly boosting them above where they should be, as they are summed with the LFE channel before being processed by your AVR as a SW channel.

If you aren't then it's a pretty close approximation of what you should be getting.

Interesting thet you still have weak bass. Are you doing any processing within the A1? Also, I don't have an A1 any more, but there was some discussion that for some reason what setting you used for the audio out (i.e. using "Auto" vs. "PCM", or the like) incorrectly affected things as well. You umay want to ask in the audio forum to see if that is still the case.

Well, if you are doing any bass redirection from your other channels, then you are technicaly boosting them above where they should be, as they are summed with the LFE channel before being processed by your AVR as a SW channel.

If you aren't then it's a pretty close approximation of what you should be getting.

Interesting thet you still have weak bass. Are you doing any processing within the A1? Also, I don't have an A1 any more, but there was some discussion that for some reason what setting you used for the audio out (i.e. using "Auto" vs. "PCM", or the like) incorrectly affected things as well. You umay want to ask in the audio forum to see if that is still the case.

I have it set to PCM, dialog enhancement and dynamic range off. All speakers in setup at Large with Sub to "yes." Still weak.

The bass from the PS3 over HDMI is also weak just like the A1 so I'm thinking it's the receiver at this point.

I did this on my Panasonic XR57. Infact I still have it at +15 but the bass is weak from my HD A1.

Robert,

According to KMO's thread located here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=748147), the XR57 doesn't do bass management or any other type of digital processing on multichannel PCM signals. Therefore, not only will the receiver's settings not work for 5.1 PCM, but it likely doesn't do the necessary 10 db LFE boost.

As for bass management, because the receiver won't do bass management to the multichannel PCM signal, you'll want to do it in your player. This will work, because the player's speaker adjustment settings affect HDMI. However, you still have the LFE problem.

So if I do a +10 in the HD-A1, that'll give it the +10 boost over all no?

I'll also raise/lower the +15 in the receiver setup to see if it had any effect on the bass at all during a HD DVD.

Thanks for the help, Steve and MSmith83 :)

Microsoft Insiders,

When will Canada see HD rentals on Xbox Live?

So if I do a +10 in the HD-A1, that'll give it the +10 boost over all no?

I'll also raise/lower the +15 in the receiver setup to see if it had any effect on the bass at all during a HD DVD.

Thanks for the help, Steve and MSmith83 :)

Since it seems that your receiver doesn't do anything to 5.1 PCM signals before amplification, you're going to want to first get the bass management and distance settings configured in the A1.

You may know this already, but to do in-player bass management, you must set the speakers you want to crossover to the sub to "small" in the player's settings. Then, set the crossover for each speaker accordingly.

You're going to have to confirm for yourself that your receiver doesn't apply its own distance calibration to 5.1 PCM signals, but this seems to be the case. If the receiver in fact does not apply the distance settings to 5.1 PCM signals, then set the right distance to each speaker through the player as they are mapped in the receiver for when handling other types of signals.

It's been a while since I used an A1, but I don't think you can do an in-player 10 db LFE boost. I think the closest you can get is by attenuating every other channel by 10 db, while leaving the LFE channel at zero. This won't have the same effect as a 10 db LFE boost, and it will obviously require you to turn the receiver up 10 db higher than usual. This in itself can be detrimental to sound quality, but it may sound fine. I know the Panasonic has a digital amplifier, so the noise floor should remain low after doing this.

Try this and work around with the settings to see what's best to your ears. Unfortunately, unlike the A1, the PS3 doesn't have these settings for you to work with.

MSmith83,

First of all thanks a ton for your help. Sometimes we forget what AVS is really about. A nice reminder :)

On my receiver I had an option for "effects" which has a bass adjustment. I played the same sequence of U571 depth charges with this effects bass set to +15 and then at 0 (or ---). This produced absolutely no difference in sound. No bass was felt. I think this might be for the PLIIx effects over optical and other inputs. Then I went into the "balance" settings on the receiver using the front buttons and saw an option for there for bass also. I changed this to +10. Then played back the sequence and bam! tons of bass! Leaving this bass setting at +10, I toggled the "effects bass" setting and it had no impact on the bass.

Prior to this, I had even set my speakers to Large trying to get some bass going. Adding the +10 shook everything! Now I set my speakers back to small and have the +10 set on the receiver for bass.

I'm still gonna read up on the Onkyo's as I'm sure there are other issues with this receiver and I need more HDMI inputs! Man, that's was a huge difference. Oh well, any excuse to rewatch the collection :)

The HD-A1 does have settings for volume but they're all negative. Ranging form 0 to -12. Left them all at 0. All the speakers are still set to large and Sub to "yes" Crossover at 100.

On the receiver, everything is at 0 except bass at 10. All speakers set to small. Crossover at 80 and I have bass! The reciver settings seem to be overriding the HD-A1 settings.

Next, I'm gonna play around with setting the front L/R to large, Center and Surrounds to small and see how that sounds. All large + sub was overkill but I'm sure I can find a good balance somewhere in there.

MSmith83,

First of all thanks a ton for your help. Sometimes we forget what AVS is really about. A nice reminder :)

On my receiver I had an option for "effects" which has a bass adjustment. I played the same sequence of U571 depth charges with this effects bass set to +15 and then at 0 (or ---). This produced absolutely no difference in sound. No bass was felt. I think this might be for the PLIIx effects over optical and other inputs. Then I went into the "balance" settings on the receiver using the front buttons and saw an option for there for bass also. I changed this to +10. Then played back the sequence and bam! tons of bass! Leaving this bass setting at +10, I toggled the "effects bass" setting and it had no impact on the bass.

Prior to this, I had even set my speakers to Large trying to get some bass going. Adding the +10 shook everything! Now I set my speakers back to small and have the +10 set on the receiver for bass.

I'm still gonna read up on the Onkyo's as I'm sure there are other issues with this receiver and I need more HDMI inputs! Man, that's was a huge difference. Oh well, any excuse to rewatch the collection :)

The HD-A1 does have settings for volume but they're all negative. Ranging form 0 to -12. Left them all at 0. All the speakers are still set to large and Sub to "yes" Crossover at 100.

On the receiver, everything is at 0 except bass at 10. All speakers set to small. Crossover at 80 and I have bass! The reciver settings seem to be overriding the HD-A1 settings.

Next, I'm gonna play around with setting the front L/R to large, Center and Surrounds to small and see how that sounds. All large + sub was overkill but I'm sure I can find a good balance somewhere in there.


Excellent! So this AVR apparently defaults to off for the LFE boost.

Have fun!

Excellent! So this AVR apparently defaults to off for the LFE boost.

Have fun!

Well kinda. Like I said there are 2 options for the Bass boost. One under the "effects" submenu and one you can access by the front buttons on receiver.

The effect submenu bass setting has no effect on Bass over HDMI/pcm.

The bass option on the receiver by pressing the buttons on front gives it the +10 boost. I think that might be the equalizer settings? not sure but it does make a diff.

There certainly is a LFE issue with this receiver over HDMI. Obviously I can't tell if the forced +10 boost is giving me the same sound quality as if the receiver didn't have a LFE bug.

Not to mention that if Toshiba was selling these units to Walmart at $98 or less then they could very well have been sold in UT, Wi or wherever else there are laws that state that you can't sell product "below cost". This only seems to matter to what the retailer purchased the unit for not the actual cost of the unit as I am pretty sure you can purchase a PS3 in Utah. Folks were saying that the "real" price to Walmart was $185 so it was Walmart who took the price hit on these NOT Toshiba. Now there very well could have been "promotional endcap money" paid to Walmart but it seems that the players themselves were purchased by Walmart at ~$200.

I live in Utah and they were $98 here as well. I don't know what the asterisk in the add was ultimately for.

TRANSPLANTED FROM THE INSIDER'S THREAD


Originally Posted by scaesare
Talk, do you REALLY believe the roadmaps are clear to consumers?Nope.

Then your suggestion that the "platforms are stable" therefore it's high-time that a single platform emerge victorious seems rather disingenuous. They may be "stable" from a planning perspective in BDA offices, but that's a far cry from market realities where the rubber meets the road with the consumer.

Heck, by your definition weren't both platforms "stable" months ago... or perhaps even before launch?


Originally Posted by scaesare Hence there's a significant chance that something like profile backlash could really change things in short order. Which is why I suspect the BDA keeps suggesting the other side should fold. I think the level of attention being placed on profiles within this forum is exponentially higher than the level of attention which will be paid by the public at-large. We've seen that most consumers never bother with bonus content. And for those who do, it's a relatively small percentage of bonus content which won't be available on all players (i.e. content requiring secondary A/V support). And much of that content is likely to be available on all players, just separately from the movie rather than simultaneously. So, yes, some percentage of consumers may well discover that they can't access all the content on every disc on their pre-1.1 player. While unfortunate, I believe that percentage will be very small, and that most of those consumers will be early adopters who are aware of the risks of purchasing new categories of products.

Do your comments regarding emphasis placed on profiles ignore the fact that consumers have largely been unaware of them? Of course there's more noise about them here... it's one of the few places prior to a month or so ago where you even HEARD about a profile!

And now that there is some discussion of them in the A/V press, they largely consist of: 1)Announcements by CE's (i.e. Denon, etc...), and 2) Articles discussing them in a rather negative light... such as a recent one calling on the BDA/Sony for clarification.

As a matter of fact, I don't recall seeing ONE positive discussion of profiles, now that I think of it.

I have to ask, what does, "And much of that content is likely to be available on all players, just separately from the movie rather than simultaneously. " mean? Does that imply that content will have to be authored to not assume PiP and other functionality? If so, then that lowest-common-denominator approach is going remove some of the more compelling uses of this next gen bonus content (think 300).

As a matter of fact, I don't recall seeing ONE positive discussion of profiles, now that I think of it.The positive aspect of profiles is that it either a) allowed Blu-ray to be launched much earlier than it would have been had they waited for Final Standard Profile, or b) allowed Blu-ray to include features not originally anticipated. In either case those consumers who are happily consuming Blu-ray content have benefited from profiles (relative to the alternative of the format only being launched now).
I have to ask, what does, "And much of that content is likely to be available on all players, just separately from the movie rather than simultaneously. " mean? Does that imply that content will have to be authored to not assume PiP and other functionality? If so, then that lowest-common-denominator approach is going remove some of the more compelling uses of this next gen bonus content (think 300).It means that some studios will make the video commentary available as a separate menu item for those players unable to support secondary video. In other words you'd watch it separately from the movie instead of on top of it (similar to how the Nine Inch Nails concert release offered the alternate camera angles they weren't able to seamlessly author into the HD DVD version movie as separate features.

There is no indication that the studios are taking a least common denominator approach (i.e. avoiding use of Bonus View or BD-Live).

The positive aspect of profiles is that it either a) allowed Blu-ray to be launched much earlier than it would have been had they waited for Final Standard Profile, or b) allowed Blu-ray to include features not originally anticipated. In either case those consumers who are happily consuming Blu-ray content have benefited from profiles (relative to the alternative of the format only being launched now).
It means that some studios will make the video commentary available as a separate menu item for those players unable to support secondary video. In other words you'd watch it separately from the movie instead of on top of it (similar to how the Nine Inch Nails concert release offered the alternate camera angles they weren't able to seamlessly author into the HD DVD version movie as separate features.

There is no indication that the studios are taking a least common denominator approach (i.e. avoiding use of Bonus View or BD-Live).

So looking at the two options: (a) gives us launching an incomplete format for the sake of getting it out there in an attempt to hurt HD DVD adoption; and (b) gives us an inference that the spec still isn't complete and features may still be added. And these are positive? :confused:

Considering titles like T3, Cranked, and The Descent using 'Fake PiP', I think Studios are taking an Least Common Denominator Approach. How can you say otherwise? :confused:

So looking at the two options: (a) gives us launching an incomplete format for the sake of getting it out there in an attempt to hurt HD DVD adoption; and (b) gives us an inference that the spec still isn't complete and features may still be added. And these are positive? :confused:Since they are "benefits" in blu-ray parlance, they do not need to be communicated to consumers.

Considering titles like T3, Cranked, and The Descent using 'Fake PiP', I think Studios are taking an Least Common Denominator Approach. How can you say otherwise? :confused:When 1.1 titles come out, I'm sure the appropriate blu spin will be applied. It probably is sitting, waiting in the PR room..."BDA announces new and improved "bonus view" players."

The 200K early adopters will thank their lucky stars to have played a part in the beta program.

The positive aspect of profiles is that it either a) allowed Blu-ray to be launched much earlier than it would have been had they waited for Final Standard Profile, or b) allowed Blu-ray to include features not originally anticipated. In either case those consumers who are happily consuming Blu-ray content have benefited from profiles (relative to the alternative of the format only being launched now).

This seems to be ignoring the point, Talk. Regarding articles being written I said, "I don't recall seeing ONE positive discussion of profiles...". That is, consumers don't see them that way.

Nobody is saying, "Wow, glad they left stuff out so they could launch a year ago!". If anything the comparison is "Umm,why did they have to leave stuff out that HD DVD had all along".*

Can you give me an example of where profiles have "allowed Blu-ray to include features not originally anticipated."? Are you saying that the 1.1 profile being released now has better stuff in it then when it was defined originally?


It means that some studios will make the video commentary available as a separate menu item for those players unable to support secondary video. In other words you'd watch it separately from the movie instead of on top of it (similar to how the Nine Inch Nails concert release offered the alternate camera angles they weren't able to seamlessly author into the HD DVD version movie as separate features.

There is no indication that the studios are taking a least common denominator approach (i.e. avoiding use of Bonus View or BD-Live).

You are ignoring my example of 300. If you author bonus content such as as it has to make sense as either a PiP stream OR a standalone stream, then you have to make some compromises for context. Explaining the green-screen setup and the narrator referring to elements shown in the main video in "this scene" don't make sense if the video is played standalone. Same goes for things like the concept art displayed via PiP for the real scenes in King Kong. Or the special effects work with the Batmobile.

The alternative, of course, is an entirely separate encode. Which then means that instead of LCD being the secondary video content, the entire disc is now authored with the LCD playback decks in mind (i.e. assume that 1.1 features aren't available).

* Come to think of it, why DID BR have to leave stuff out of 1.1? It had long been suggested that it was because HD PiP was needed. Now we know that's not true. What prevented BR from just implementing the same stuff HD did?

* Come to think of it, why DID BR have to leave stuff out of 1.1? It had long been suggested that it was because HD PiP was needed. Now we know that's not true. What prevented BR from just implementing the same stuff HD did?

I've asked this same question as well ... why the delay? We were told consumers had to wait, but it was worth it, because there would be HD PiP and that was better than what HD DVD offered. It turns out that was *very* wrong. So why did early adopters get taken advantage of if this same technology was available in HD DVD over a year ago?

CE's wanting to double dip and keep their margins high perhaps?

I think it was left out because BD was initially designed as an mpeg2 recording / playback device and was all set to launch that way until HD DVD came out first with better features. Rather than take a year out of the game to catch up on specs the BD companies went ahead and launched to minimize the adoption of HD DVD.

I think it was left out because BD was initially designed as an mpeg2 recording / playback device and was all set to launch that way until HD DVD came out first with better features. Rather than take a year out of the game to catch up on specs the BD companies went ahead and launched to minimize the adoption of HD DVD.But how was that a surprise with Sony, Panasonic, etc already being members of the DVD Forum and fully aware of what was going in the HD DVD spec? Just seems that Toshiba did a better hardware/software execution of capabilities like network connectivity and hardware support of PiP. The BDA CE manufacturers could have done the same if they had their act together -- but then maybe it would have been like herding cats to get all that in the original BD spec. Even with the big lead BD had, Toshiba came out with fully capable players two months before the Samsung BD player.

I think Sony and BDA put too much faith in the PS3. IF the PS3 had sold in the numbers projected, BD would have the lead. But we see how that turned out.

I think Sony and BDA put too much faith in the PS3. IF the PS3 had sold in the numbers projected, BD would have the lead. But we see how that turned out.

Sorry, but last time I checked, BD DID have the lead in any meaningful measurement. What leaderboard are you looking at?

So looking at the two options: (a) gives us launching an incomplete format for the sake of getting it out there in an attempt to hurt HD DVD adoption
I doubt Blu-ray could have overcome a 12-18 month headstart by HD DVD, so given the choice between launching with a subset of the final featureset or launching a year+ later against a format which might already have had great momentum, the choice is pretty clear.
Considering titles like T3, Cranked, and The Descent using 'Fake PiP', I think Studios are taking an Least Common Denominator Approach. How can you say otherwise?Your claims of "fake" PiP are simply pointless. According to Warner the T3 Blu-ray IME experience is identical to the HD DVD IME experience, yet it uses "fake" PiP. If the experience is identical why would a consumer possibly care what authoring technique the studio used? In fact, using PiP encoding provides the studio more flexibility because the extra bandwidth required for the A/V doesn't count against the overall bandwidth limit, which means there's more room for lossless or additional foreign language tracks (and ironically probably a benefit of more value to HD DVD than Blu-ray given Blu-ray's 60^ higher bandwidth limit, yet generally not an option for HD DVD due to the 30GB disc capacity). Claims of "fake" PiP are nothing more than sour grapes because it's generally not an option available to HD DVD authors.

Ok, so we should call it burnt-in PiP. Can't be moved around by the user desires, no? Resized? Those things we are used to doing with TV's with a second video channel. Having to use a BD50 just so two entire separate main feature encodes can be contained. If this is so great then why is there a "Bonus View" profile at all?

I doubt Blu-ray could have overcome a 12-18 month headstart by HD DVD, so given the choice between launching with a subset of the final featureset or launching a year+ later against a format which might already have had great momentum, the choice is pretty clear.
Your claims of "fake" PiP are simply pointless. According to Warner the T3 Blu-ray IME experience is identical to the HD DVD IME experience, yet it uses "fake" PiP. If the experience is identical why would a consumer possibly care what authoring technique the studio used? In fact, using PiP encoding provides the studio more flexibility because the extra bandwidth required for the A/V doesn't count against the overall bandwidth limit, which means there's more room for lossless or additional foreign language tracks (and ironically probably a benefit of more value to HD DVD than Blu-ray given Blu-ray's 60^ higher bandwidth limit, yet generally not an option for HD DVD due to the 30GB disc capacity). Claims of "fake" PiP are nothing more than sour grapes because it's generally not an option available to HD DVD authors.

So when a studio use's "fake"PiP then doesn't that also mean that the BD50 disc being used is basically containing 2 copies of the same film,1 being the main film the other with a burnt in PiP. So using this type of PiP tech like a standard dvd does, puts egg on the space advantage theory for PQ, doesn't it? Like 2 sepreate BD-25 encodes packaged into a BD-50?
Same how SD DVD has a Widescreen or Full Frame version on the same disc or Fake PiP.
Taking about wasting space.

So with that said, what is the advantage of 50GB if you are wasting the space encoding the movie TWICE on the same disc instead of using the extra space for additional extras and goodies?

Your argument puts blu-ray in a bad light if you really think about it because all it does is say sorry we can't do PiP the way HD DVD does it, but we can still cheat our way into doing it, so don't worry, oh but we can't give you more extras because we wated all the space we could have, should have would have used on the second encode.

I doubt Blu-ray could have overcome a 12-18 month headstart by HD DVD, so given the choice between launching with a subset of the final featureset or launching a year+ later against a format which might already have had great momentum, the choice is pretty clear.

By that idea, it would be OK to come out with a car that doesn't have breaks because Toyota is pushing out the 08s before you're ready and you don't want to lose out (yes, that is an extreme analogy, but I think the idea gets across).

Are you saying that the 1.1 profile being released now has better stuff in it then when it was defined originally?The discussions took place before my direct BDA involvement, but I understand secondary A/V was a feature added late in the BD specification process (perhaps at the behest of Warner or Disney, the most recent two studios to join the BDA Board of Directors). Adding this feature would not have been possible without profiles (given that delaying format launch by a year or more would have been untenable).
You are ignoring my example of 300. If you author bonus content such as as it has to make sense as either a PiP stream OR a standalone stream, then you have to make some compromises for context.In many cases, yes. So it may be that those watching on Bonus View players can watch with the video overlaid on the screen, while those watching on 1.0 players have to pop out of the movie to watch the additional content (full screen), then pop back in when the segment is complete or they get bored. Do you really consider the distinction between these two experiences to be so significant? Some directors might even mandate the second approach in order to prevent the visual distraction of a picture-in-picture window, and going full-screen allows for better detail.

Steve, you seem to be applying a very all-or-nothing approach to this issue - if a 1.0 consumer doesn't have the exact same experience as a 1.1 consumer then they've suffered grievous harm. My point is that in most cases the 1.0 experience may be marginally less rich than the 1.1 experience, but in a subjective way which in fact some consumers will prefer (some viewers clearly find PiP a distraction).

Let's put this all in context. Of the currently installed base of Blu-ray players, something like 80% are PS3's which will likely support Bonus View content in the near future. I estimate 75% of viewers never watch director commentary (my guess, but a majority of the AVS membership says "just give me the damn movie", and you'd expect HT enthusiasts would be more likely to watch commentary than the public-at-large). So now we're down to 25% of 20%, or 5% of Blu-ray viewers who actually watch director commentary and own 1.0 players. This 5% will generally have access to the same content as the Bonus View viewers, just presented in a different way (which for most content in a way which is different, not inherently "inferior"). Over time this 5% will dwindle as they update to newer players (given that they are by definition early adopters and much more inclined to want the "latest and greatest". The prominence you and others have assigned to this issue truly and clearly outweighs its significance in the marketplace.

There's no question I'd have preferred that profiles didn't exist. I'd rather see profiles than never have had secondary A/V support, however, and the "damage" caused by profiles has been wildly overstated relative to the reality of the situation.

The discussions took place before my direct BDA involvement, but I understand secondary A/V was a feature added late in the BD specification process (perhaps at the behest of Warner or Disney, the most recent two studios to join the BDA Board of Directors). Adding this feature would not have been possible without profiles (given that delaying format launch by a year or more would have been untenable).
In many cases, yes. So it may be that those watching on Bonus View players can watch with the video overlaid on the screen, while those watching on 1.0 players have to pop out of the movie to watch the additional content (full screen), then pop back in when the segment is complete or they get bored. Do you really consider the distinction between these two experiences to be so significant? Some directors might even mandate the second approach in order to prevent the visual distraction of a picture-in-picture window, and going full-screen allows for better detail.

Steve, you seem to be applying a very all-or-nothing approach to this issue - if a 1.0 consumer doesn't have the exact same experience as a 1.1 consumer then they've suffered grievous harm. My point is that in most cases the 1.0 experience may be marginally less rich than the 1.1 experience, but in a subjective way which in fact some consumers will prefer (some viewers clearly find PiP a distraction).

Let's put this all in context. Of the currently installed base of Blu-ray players, something like 80% are PS3's which will likely support Bonus View content in the near future. I estimate 75% of viewers never watch director commentary (my guess, but a majority of the AVS membership says "just give me the damn movie", and you'd expect HT enthusiasts would be more likely to watch commentary than the public-at-large). So now we're down to 25% of 20%, or 5% of Blu-ray viewers who actually watch director commentary and own 1.0 players. This 5% will generally have access to the same content as the Bonus View viewers, just presented in a different way (which for most content in a way which is different, not inherently "inferior"). Over time this 5% will dwindle as they update to newer players (given that they are by definition early adopters and much more inclined to want the "latest and greatest". The prominence you and others have assigned to this issue truly and clearly outweighs its significance in the marketplace.

There's no question I'd have preferred that profiles didn't exist. I'd rather see profiles than never have had secondary A/V support, however, and the "damage" caused by profiles has been wildly overstated relative to the reality of the situation.
As Pete Burns said.

I doubt Blu-ray could have overcome a 12-18 month headstart by HD DVD, so given the choice between launching with a subset of the final featureset or launching a year+ later against a format which might already have had great momentum, the choice is pretty clear.

Right, so they rushed to market because they weren't ready.


Your claims of "fake" PiP are simply pointless. According to Warner the T3 Blu-ray IME experience is identical to the HD DVD IME experience, yet it uses "fake" PiP. If the experience is identical why would a consumer possibly care what authoring technique the studio used?

Unless the remote and menus work identically to the way they do with HD DVD, this is completely incorrect. Have you seen the disc? I'll wait to actually try it first hand if you have not. The Descent and Cranked were *not* the same experience and they were *very* different. If this is done the same way, then it's not identical. If you have to return to the main menu to turn this on/off, it's not identical. If you have to fast forward or reward to get to where you were before you turned it on/off, it's not identical. If you can't move the window around, it's not identical. The picture on the sceen might be identical, but the functionality, clearly, is not.


In fact, using PiP encoding provides the studio more flexibility because the extra bandwidth required for the A/V doesn't count against the overall bandwidth limit, which means there's more room for lossless or additional foreign language tracks (and ironically probably a benefit of more value to HD DVD than Blu-ray given Blu-ray's 60^ higher bandwidth limit, yet generally not an option for HD DVD due to the 30GB disc capacity).

Ah, okay, so Fake PiP is *better* and adds flexibility? Is this a serious talking point? Once you add Fake PiP -- which is a whole separate encode, you are effectively reducing your available capacity to HALF. How do you figure it's going to give you more room for lossless or additional language tracks? If a movie is 30GB in size without PiP, how are you going to add a duplicate 30GB encode on a 50GB disc? Once you go with 'Fake PiP' you have 25GB per encode max, and that includes the audio tracks you'd have to duplicate too. That's *LESS* than what you have available on HD30. So much for Blu-ray's capacity and bandwidth advantages! :rolleyes:


Claims of "fake" PiP are nothing more than sour grapes because it's generally not an option available to HD DVD authors.

Ahh ... that must be it. It's sour grapes because people are upset they don't have to waste twice the space to 'fake' something that HD DVD can do natively on every single player released since Day-1.

Seriously, why would there be Sour Grapes? HD DVD can do this, and it can do it better. :confused:

The discussions took place before my direct BDA involvement, but I understand secondary A/V was a feature added late in the BD specification process (perhaps at the behest of Warner or Disney, the most recent two studios to join the BDA Board of Directors). Adding this feature would not have been possible without profiles (given that delaying format launch by a year or more would have been untenable).
In many cases, yes. So it may be that those watching on Bonus View players can watch with the video overlaid on the screen, while those watching on 1.0 players have to pop out of the movie to watch the additional content (full screen), then pop back in when the segment is complete or they get bored. Do you really consider the distinction between these two experiences to be so significant? Some directors might even mandate the second approach in order to prevent the visual distraction of a picture-in-picture window, and going full-screen allows for better detail.

Steve, you seem to be applying a very all-or-nothing approach to this issue - if a 1.0 consumer doesn't have the exact same experience as a 1.1 consumer then they've suffered grievous harm. My point is that in most cases the 1.0 experience may be marginally less rich than the 1.1 experience, but in a subjective way which in fact some consumers will prefer (some viewers clearly find PiP a distraction).

Let's put this all in context. Of the currently installed base of Blu-ray players, something like 80% are PS3's which will likely support Bonus View content in the near future. I estimate 75% of viewers never watch director commentary (my guess, but a majority of the AVS membership says "just give me the damn movie", and you'd expect HT enthusiasts would be more likely to watch commentary than the public-at-large). So now we're down to 25% of 20%, or 5% of Blu-ray viewers who actually watch director commentary and own 1.0 players. This 5% will generally have access to the same content as the Bonus View viewers, just presented in a different way (which for most content in a way which is different, not inherently "inferior"). Over time this 5% will dwindle as they update to newer players (given that they are by definition early adopters and much more inclined to want the "latest and greatest". The prominence you and others have assigned to this issue truly and clearly outweighs its significance in the marketplace.

There's no question I'd have preferred that profiles didn't exist. I'd rather see profiles than never have had secondary A/V support, however, and the "damage" caused by profiles has been wildly overstated relative to the reality of the situation.

So the early adopter for Blu-ray will get to spend hundreds of dollars more (if not a thousand plus) compared to the HD DVD early adopter to get less features?

It just shows that Blu-ray was half baked from the beginning. HD DVD had the secondary decoder in there from Day-1. Blu-ray, apparently, did not. Why spend so much more money for less?

Even if you bought a $600 player last year, you have to spend another $500 now to pickup a Profile 1.1 player. That's $1100 total. And you still don't have BD Live. So what then? Another $500 in a year to pick up a BD-Live enabled player too? $1600 to get the full functionality and a wait for 2+ years?

Whereas with HD DVD you could have bought Day-1 for $500 and it already had all this functionality? You can even upgrade to an HD-X35 and still have spent less overall (and you get two complete players versus a series of obsolete and more obsolete players).

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to suggest that Profiles were a good thing for the consumer. Maybe for the BDA they were good, but what should consumers care about that? Why should consumers care if they BDA was ready or not? It seems to me the logic is that Profiles are 'good' because it allowed the BDA to stay in the game rather than get shut out of it. But, now the BDA is shouting that two formats are bad and are holding back adoption of HDM. Had the BDA just waited until their format was finished, it likely wouldn't have been a problem, no?

Plus, if Blu-ray is so technically superior, how can you suggest they couldn't compete with HD DVD even if they had a bit of a lead? Is it because both formats offer the same relative PQ/AQ and are capable of reference quality and once consumers saw how great HD DVD was they wouldn't bother spending several times more money on a format that have the same quality and yet had less features?

In many cases, yes. So it may be that those watching on Bonus View players can watch with the video overlaid on the screen, while those watching on 1.0 players have to pop out of the movie to watch the additional content (full screen), then pop back in when the segment is complete or they get bored. Do you really consider the distinction between these two experiences to be so significant?Yes. PiP makes the most sense for things that need to be seen in the context of the main movie, like e.g. the bluescreen feature of "300", or a director pointing out scene specific issues in "realtime", storyboard comparisons, and whatever else creative minds will come up with in the future.
Some directors might even mandate the second approach in order to prevent the visual distraction of a picture-in-picture window, and going full-screen allows for better detail.That's why some movies on HD-DVD do both PiP and "popping out", whatever is more appropriate (e.g. Blood Diamond).
Steve, you seem to be applying a very all-or-nothing approach to this issue - if a 1.0 consumer doesn't have the exact same experience as a 1.1 consumer then they've suffered grievous harm.Some features, such as the already mentioned bluescreen feature, just don't make any sense without the context of the movie.
My point is that in most cases the 1.0 experience may be marginally less rich than the 1.1 experience, but in a subjective way which in fact some consumers will prefer (some viewers clearly find PiP a distraction).Hm, so the web-enabled capabilities are bad because some people "don't trust network connections", and PiP capability is bad because some people might find it distracting. :rolleyes:
Let's put this all in context. Of the currently installed base of Blu-ray players, something like 80% are PS3's which will likely support Bonus View content in the near future. I estimate 75% of viewers never watch director commentaryI'm not sure why you keep downplaying IME-like features as "director commentary". The idea is clearly to open the way for new innovative features that cannot be done on DVD.
This 5% will generally have access to the same content as the Bonus View viewers, just presented in a different way (which for most content in a way which is different, not inherently "inferior").Uh, ok. :rolleyes:

Ya, it's not 'inferior'. It's just limited, incomplete, less functional, costs way more, and it's not as good. But inferior? No way! :p

It is a hard postion to defend give Talk a break.

The discussions took place before my direct BDA involvement, but I understand secondary A/V was a feature added late in the BD specification process (perhaps at the behest of Warner or Disney, the most recent two studios to join the BDA Board of Directors). Adding this feature would not have been possible without profiles (given that delaying format launch by a year or more would have been untenable).
Providing the historic perspective here:

1. Disney joined up with BDA in December 2004/Jan. 2005. Made their wishes known there while also working in DVD Forum on HD DVD interactivity driving features such as secondary video decoders to be mandatory.

2. In September of 2005, Intel and Microsoft announced support for HD DVD (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/sep05/09-26HDDVDPromotionGroupPR.mspx). Among key reasons mentioned, was support for dual video decoders absent in BD.

3. Around end of 2005 (or thereabouts). BDA added support for dual video decoder through (quiet) introduction of profiles.

It is a hard postion to defend give Talk a break.
I think that is what surprises people the most. Why even bother trying to defend the point?

The arguments come off as pathetic (at best) or lame (at worst).

Ok, so we should call it burnt-in PiP. Can't be moved around by the user desires, no? Resized? Those things we are used to doing with TV's with a second video channel.But are frequently not enabled by the disc author. There are advantages and disadvantages of both methods. Using a secondary A/V decoder allows the user to resize or move the picture around (if the disc has been authored to permit this), but also means you won't hear the audio unless you decode it in the player. Using dual encoding means you'll always hear the audio regardless of whether you decode in the player or in the AVR.
If this is so great then why is there a "Bonus View" profile at all?There are times where having a secondary A/V decoder can be very useful. It's just not the end-all and be-all those who want to disparage Blu-ray have made it out to be.

By that idea, it would be OK to come out with a car that doesn't have breaks because Toyota is pushing out the 08s before you're ready and you don't want to lose out.This "analogy" is so absurd as not to be worth further comment.

This "analogy" is so absurd as not to be worth further comment.

I agree, the analogy is absurd, but I do think its worth further comment. The BDA decided to release an incomplete product in order to have a fighting chance in the High Def market. This, in itself, is poor planning when it all comes down to it. And what is the BDA's answer to someone who bought a BD Player that can't be upgraded to 1.1 or 2.0? "Suck it up and buy a new one". So not only is pushing out a product before its ready a poor idea in essence, the BDA also has no problem with disrespecting the consumer.

Unless the remote and menus work identically to the way they do with HD DVD, this is completely incorrect. Have you seen the disc? I'll wait to actually try it first hand if you have not. The Descent and Cranked were *not* the same experience and they were *very* different. Descent and Cranked came from Lionsgate. The "fake" PiP on those titles is certainly better than the "real" PiP on the non-existent HD DVD versions of those titles!

Each studio has a different set of UI guidelines. Let me quote from a review (http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/treereview.php3?ID=9000) of a Warner IME title on HD DVD:
This is highly annoying because, as usual, Warner refuses to allow one to switch back and forth between the IME on the fly. Furthermore, bookmarking is disabled while you're in the IME.So it appears that, even on HD DVD, you can't turn PiP on and off at will, at least on many of their titles. Yet I'm told by a WB exec that the Blu-ray release will allow the viewer to turn the window on and off. So which one appears to offer the more user-friendly experience? The point is that the studio ultimately controls your experience, not the capability of the underlying hardware. Just because hardware-based PiP theoretically can provide a more flexible user experience in certain regards (i.e. resizing or moving the picture around), there is no guarantee this capability will in fact be available.
Ah, okay, so Fake PiP is *better* and adds flexibility?Having the choice between using dual encoding or using secondary decoders is certainly more flexible than having no choice. Is it better? At times, yes, at times no. If your title is bandwidth constrained then it's better, as it allows you to devote more bits to the primary audio/video. If you're decoding in the AVR it's better since you will still hear the "secondary" audio. If you want to give the user flexibility to move the picture around at will it's not suitable. there are tradeoffs, but your blanket declaration that "Fake PiP" has no value completely and absolutely misses the point, which is to deliver the best audio/video experience to the consumer.
Once you add Fake PiP -- which is a whole separate encode, you are effectively reducing your available capacity to HALF. How do you figure it's going to give you more room for lossless or additional language tracks? If a movie is 30GB in size without PiP, how are you going to add a duplicate 30GB encode on a 50GB disc? Once you go with 'Fake PiP' you have 25GB per encode max, and that includes the audio tracks you'd have to duplicate too.Once again you're over-simplifying. Does there need to be a separate PiP window during the entire movie? Generally not, certainly not for the majority of movies which don't break new technical ground and hence for which there is nothing compelling to show during much of the movie. I would estimate that for a typical drama, comedy, or action movie the studio would use a video window less than 25% of the time, perhaps much less. Further, the full disc capacity isn't being devoted to the main feature, it's also devoted to bonus content for which PiP isn't applicable. Even if you devoted 30GB to a movie (which wouldn't be possible on HD DVD, incidentally, since it would leave no room for any additional content), assuming a dual encode for 25% of the movie would only add 7.5GB. And you wouldn't impact your bandwidth at all, which would still mean the studio could include many additional foreign language tracks and reduce the number of versions of the movie they have to press.
So the early adopter for Blu-ray will get to spend hundreds of dollars more (if not a thousand plus) compared to the HD DVD early adopter to get less features?Further oversimplification and tortured logic. A profile 1.0 Blu-ray player is missing two hardware features found in HD DVD: secondary audio/video decoders and network connectivity. And they have two features no HD DVD players have: the ability to read 50GB discs and 48Mbps of bandwidth. Which of those feature sets makes a bigger impact on the movie itself? I've already demonstrated that using dual encoding allows the studio to provide PiP capability which 95%+ of the public will find indistinguishable from a version authored using secondary audio/video. Yet HD DVD will never be able to provide a two hour movie authored at an average 25Mb/sec video bitrate plus a lossless PCM English soundtrack plus three TrueHD foreign language soundtracks plus bonus content, as you'll exceed both the maximum bitrate and the capacity of a 30GB disc. The fact that all Blu-ray players don't include a secondary decoder is unfortunate, yet it's trivial relative to the much greater limitations of HD DVD's basic bandwidth and capacity deficiencies.
It just shows that Blu-ray was half baked from the beginning. HD DVD had the secondary decoder in there from Day-1. Blu-ray, apparently, did not. Why spend so much more money for less?Since you apparently value the ability to move a PiP window around the screen at will more than you do the ability to put the best possible content on the disc, I'll stop trying to convince you of the absurd of your argument regarding PiP.

Wow, 90K players

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12148574#post12148574

That's about 25% higher than the estimate that I was given for Wal-Mart alone. Best Buy and Circuit City must have moved a lot of units as well. I wonder how many A3's were sold?

Yet HD DVD will never be able to provide a two hour movie authored at an average 25Mb/sec video bitrate plus a lossless PCM English soundtrack plus three TrueHD foreign language soundtracks plus bonus content, as you'll exceed both the maximum bitrate and the capacity of a 30GB disc. The fact that all Blu-ray players don't include a secondary decoder is unfortunate, yet it's trivial relative to the much greater limitations of HD DVD's basic bandwidth and capacity deficiencies.

I feel compelled to take issue with these comments, as I believe that they represent misdirected attention to what matters to the public. While the data you present may very well make an accurate case (I'm going to assume that they do), what's important is whether those points are necessary to deliver a high quality product to the consumer.

> a two hour movie authored at an average 25Mb/sec video bitrate

Is it necessary for a movie to be encoded at 25Mbps on average to have a high quality picture? I would think that would depend not only on the codec used but also the movie in question and how challenging it is to encode its video. From my understanding, 25Mbps is a very high bitrate, and high quality transfers have been done with much less.

By any chance, do you have some examples of high PQ movies that meet the 25Mbps mark? I'd be curious to know, as well, how many movies have received high marks for PQ but were encoded with lower bitrates (regardless of the codec being used).

My experience with doing my own amateur video encoding is that optimizing video is a lot like optimizing photos. Using the JPG format, you can set various quality levels when you save a photo. There is a crossover point where you achieve very little additional gains by going above a certain quality level, but the file size begins to increase dramatically. There is a certain point where the increased space is not necessary to convey a very good image. I have found the same to be true in the video world, and I can't imagine that it's any different when dealing with HD video.

> plus a lossless PCM English soundtrack plus three TrueHD foreign language soundtracks

Here's another example where I feel that you over-reached. There's no need to provide PCM lossless sound on HD DVD when all players decode Dolby TrueHD. That saves quite a bit of space right there. I believe the compression factor is about 2:1, is that correct?

An English soundtrack plus three foreign language soundtracks is quite a lot, especially if the disc is region-coded. How many regions have four primary languages in markets that would see value in having all four in lossless sound? It's actually a greater issue for HD DVD because of not having region coding, but I have not heard of any Blu-ray disc having this many lossless soundtracks. As I'm not familiar with all the Blu-ray software releases, can someone point out a title that has four lossless soundtracks?

The one use I could see for that many lossless soundtracks is if one of them was the isolated soundtrack score. While not a foreign language, I can see that as being a very good use of the capability to have multiple lossless soundtracks on a disc. However, to my knowledge, no discs on either format are including such tracks.

All this is assuming that lossless sound is absolutely required to have excellent sound quality. Much in the same way that you reach a crossover point with video, there is also a crossover point with audio. While I like the idea of having lossless sound from a purely engineering point of view (if I can have the best possible, I want the best possible!), I haven't seen any negative comments on 1.5Mbps DD+ soundtracks, like King Kong and Transformers. I could look through hundreds of reviews to be sure, but even places like Widescreen Review, which has audio equipment and listening environments that exceed a huge percentage of the consuming public, have not shown that DD+ is a deficient sound format. I'm going from recollection here, so if someone has real data to dispute that, I'd be happy to see it and do some personal investigation.

> plus bonus content

This one I'll give you, but only because every consumer is capable of appreciating bonus content. That's not saying that they'll actually watch it, or play it (in the case of HDM with the interactive games and activities that are being produced), but I have a much greater chance of playing with the whack-a-car game in Cars than I would listening to the fourth language soundtrack in Dolby TrueHD.

I see this as being the least limiting, as it's very possible to place bonus content on a second disc. Some content that I've seen requires the movie (IME, Cars' find-the-car game, etc.), but that isn't any more insurmountable by placing a second copy of the movie on disc 2 than it is for Blu-ray to place a second copy of the movie that has PiP fixed on the screen.


I think it's great to talk specs and for one side to say their "something" is bigger than the other side's, but I also think it's dangerous for the companies involved (and for anyone that is providing advice to others) to lose sight of what impacts the consumer.

I've been watching HD for three years come January. When I first started, it wasn't always easy for me to see the difference between well-done HD programming and poorly-done HD programming. Now, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I'm sure that there are more subtle examples of HD that isn't as good as the best and perhaps with time, I'll become even more picky about it.

I've had an HD DVD player for over a year (13 months to be exact) and I can say that I've not seen a bad presentation on either the audio or video side of things. Some are better than others, but every single disc I've watched has been better than the OTA and DirecTV HD-equivalents, which are the only other points of comparison I have.

In all the reviews that I have read of HD DVD's, and of movies that have been released on both formats, I've not seen an example where the HD DVD has suffered from a lack of quality. Especially not to the point where the above-average consumer (not counting the people that can't see the difference between SD and HD and that can't tell when something is being stretched to fit their widescreen) could tell.

I just don't think looking at specs alone holds water. It's great for bragging rights in the locker room, but some perspective is an important thing to have.

Man, don't get me started like that. I just spent lots more time on this than I planned on! :)

BigScreen who posted that? The one that you quoted.

BigScreen who posted that? The one that you quoted.

Post #1331

But are frequently not enabled by the disc author. There are advantages and disadvantages of both methods. Using a secondary A/V decoder allows the user to resize or move the picture around (if the disc has been authored to permit this), but also means you won't hear the audio unless you decode it in the player. Using dual encoding means you'll always hear the audio regardless of whether you decode in the player or in the AVR.
There are times where having a secondary A/V decoder can be very useful. It's just not the end-all and be-all those who want to disparage Blu-ray have made it out to be.

Okay, so now you need two PCM streams (one with the audio for PiP embedded and one without). There goes even more bandwidth and space. :rolleyes:

Steve, you seem to be applying a very all-or-nothing approach to this issue - if a 1.0 consumer doesn't have the exact same experience as a 1.1 consumer then they've suffered grievous harm. My point is that in most cases the 1.0 experience may be marginally less rich than the 1.1 experience, but in a subjective way which in fact some consumers will prefer (some viewers clearly find PiP a distraction).


Wow... a Blu-ray supporter speaking against an all-or-nothing approach?
With all respect... I find this statement very interesting because the all-or-nothing approach is THE approach used by many people who favor Blu-ray when (somehow) we see those endless discussions about the bitrate differences among the two formats... :D ...when people post those enlarged screenshots and starts comparing pixels... and find differences where nobody else can... LOL

Such all-or-nothing approach is here:

Yet HD DVD will never be able to provide a two hour movie authored at an average 25Mb/sec video bitrate plus a lossless PCM English soundtrack plus three TrueHD foreign language soundtracks plus bonus content, as you'll exceed both the maximum bitrate and the capacity of a 30GB disc. The fact that all Blu-ray players don't include a secondary decoder is unfortunate, yet it's trivial relative to the much greater limitations of HD DVD's basic bandwidth and capacity deficiencies.


On one post you say something like "well... HD DVD supporters who point Blu-ray customers won't have it all (in terms of extras) are showing an all-or-nothing approach" while on the second you say something like "well... people should see that Blu-ray is superior because it can put four PCM soundtracks on the disc"... all this with the backvocals of other Blu-ray supporters who do the "all-or-nothing" evangelism when they say "we reffuse to have anything less than PCM".

That sounds to me like a huge contradiction.

But there's a bigger one here: sure Blu-ray's 50Gb discs and higher bitrate can accommodate four lossless soundtracks - and you won't accept anything less than that. Ok... but can Blu-ray put at my disposal any of all foreign soundtracks available? I do not think so because only HD DVD gives you a situation where all the players can download them. In this case, Blu-ray cannot even provide me with a mono soundtrack if the one I want is not on the disc. Some Blu-ray players will never allow me to do that... even if the studio allows me to do that for its HD DVD releases. The same goes for simple subtitles. Will Blu-ray allow me to download one single subtitles set with the Sony stand alone player I can buy today? No.

Perhaps, if Blu-ray start using VC1 (at the same bitrates of HD DVD) and DolbyTrueHD (instead of PCM - something it cannot do) on a 50Gb disc you'll be able to get all the subtitles available and all the soundtracks available (even if in mono). :D Then, only then, Blu-ray will be truly superior for making HD DVD's mandatory connecting ports useless.

You know I'm joking, don't you? :D
I do not have that all-or-nothing approach.

Well... I'll be honest: I'm a foreigner and I'm used to subtitles. In fact, I prefer subtitles over a lossless Portuguese soundtrack where the voice of the characters doesn't match the lips of the actors (that alone spoils some of the pleasure I would get from the original lossless language). :D That's why I find Blu-ray's obsession with lossless foreign soundtracks so redundant. But that's me. I am sure lots of non-English speakers hate subtitles.

And I honestly do not think that multiple lossless foreign soundtracks are more important than the extras you can enjoy in all HD DVD players. Pack a BD50 disc with SEVEN lossless PCM foreign soundtracks and, at best, I'll only use two of them. Still I'm paying for all the others. And they are all there wasting space.

The discussions took place before my direct BDA involvement, but I understand secondary A/V was a feature added late in the BD specification process (perhaps at the behest of Warner or Disney, the most recent two studios to join the BDA Board of Directors). Adding this feature would not have been possible without profiles (given that delaying format launch by a year or more would have been untenable).

If my memory serves (and Amir's subsequent post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12147820&postcount=1326) seems to confirm), the split between the camps happened such that much of the development of the two formats was done in parallel.

While you seem to be fond of the idea that 1.1 is a positive in that "it allowed the format to be launched earlier", it seems more like 1.1 "gave BR a chance to add what HD DVD already had".

I'm not trying to disparage it for the sake of it. I'm trying to get you to understand that the consumer who just dropped $600-$1000 doesn't care about what the BDA had to scramble to add. They look at the two platforms and wonder why the deck that's 3X the cost doesn't do what the other does.

In many cases, yes. So it may be that those watching on Bonus View players can watch with the video overlaid on the screen, while those watching on 1.0 players have to pop out of the movie to watch the additional content (full screen), then pop back in when the segment is complete or they get bored. Do you really consider the distinction between these two experiences to be so significant? Some directors might even mandate the second approach in order to prevent the visual distraction of a picture-in-picture window, and going full-screen allows for better detail.


Uh... yeah. Have you seen the bonus content of 300? It doesn't work standalone. And that particular content happens to have garnered VERY positive feedback as very innovative, so please don't respond with, "Well, the content would be presented differently.".

And you DO realize that having PiP available does NOT preclude the director from opting to have a completely separate bonus track, should he want it. Whereas NOT having PiP DOES preclude a director having a PiP track should he want it. Your idea of "some directors" is silly, Talk... did you imagine that he viewers of those director's content were just going to be the folks stuck with 1.0 decks?


Steve, you seem to be applying a very all-or-nothing approach to this issue - if a 1.0 consumer doesn't have the exact same experience as a 1.1 consumer then they've suffered grievous harm. My point is that in most cases the 1.0 experience may be marginally less rich than the 1.1 experience, but in a subjective way which in fact some consumers will prefer (some viewers clearly find PiP a distraction).


Cut the dramatics. "Grievous harm?" Please. :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of "marginally less rich". For some content it won't work. Period. I won't address your "some viewers may find it a distraction" comment, as it's quite frankly ridiculous.

Actually, on second thought I will: The PiP button is a toggle... you can turn it off.


Let's put this all in context. Of the currently installed base of Blu-ray players, something like 80% are PS3's which will likely support Bonus View content in the near future. I estimate 75% of viewers never watch director commentary (my guess, but a majority of the AVS membership says "just give me the damn movie", and you'd expect HT enthusiasts would be more likely to watch commentary than the public-at-large). So now we're down to 25% of 20%, or 5% of Blu-ray viewers who actually watch director commentary and own 1.0 players. This 5% will generally have access to the same content as the Bonus View viewers, just presented in a different way (which for most content in a way which is different, not inherently "inferior"). Over time this 5% will dwindle as they update to newer players (given that they are by definition early adopters and much more inclined to want the "latest and greatest". The prominence you and others have assigned to this issue truly and clearly outweighs its significance in the marketplace.

Based on attach rates for standalones vs. PS3's I'm not sure your numbers hold. I suspect that stand-alone decks represent more "installed" movies then just their "percentage" of players as a whole.

Nonetheless, a director doesn't know which subset will, or won't, be interested in his bonus content, now will he? So he either gives up authoring in some of the more advanced methods, or risks short-changing a significant portion of the audience purchasing today.

There's no question I'd have preferred that profiles didn't exist. I'd rather see profiles than never have had secondary A/V support, however, and the "damage" caused by profiles has been wildly overstated relative to the reality of the situation.

Isn't that because: 1) They've been a rather non-disclosed secret, and 2) the content to exploit the newer profile features doesnt exist yet?

Yet HD DVD will never be able to provide a two hour movie authored at an average 25Mb/sec video bitrate plus a lossless PCM English soundtrack plus three TrueHD foreign language soundtracks plus bonus content, as you'll exceed both the maximum bitrate and the capacity of a 30GB disc. The fact that all Blu-ray players don't include a secondary decoder is unfortunate, yet it's trivial relative to the much greater limitations of HD DVD's basic bandwidth and capacity deficiencies.

I don't care which format you use, PCM is a waste of bandwidth and space. Also, not caring which format you use, more than one lossless track (anything other than the original that was created, you know, the creator's intent) is a waste of bandwidth and space. The original audio has already been destroyed when you decided to dub in another spoken language, making it a "lossless mangling" just to say it's lossless is silly.

But I'm curious, what's the "logic" used above that says the English must be PCM and the other three must be TrueHD? Why wouldn't they all be PCM when using that argument? Why wouldn't they all be TrueHD?

Put the original in lossless, if you must, (although we've all seen DD+ 1.5 MB be just as good) and the rest in DD or DD+, and put those other bits to better use, say, for, I don't know, PQ or interactivity.

I don't care which format you use, PCM is a waste of bandwidth and space. Also, not caring which format you use, more than one lossless track (anything other than the original that was created, you know, the creator's intent) is a waste of bandwidth and space. The original audio has already been destroyed when you decided to dub in another spoken language, making it a "lossless mangling" just to say it's lossless is silly.

But I'm curious, what's the "logic" used above that says the English must be PCM and the other three must be TrueHD? Why wouldn't they all be PCM when using that argument? Why wouldn't they all be TrueHD?

Put the original in lossless, if you must, (although we've all seen DD+ 1.5 MB be just as good) and the rest in DD or DD+, and put those other bits to better use, say, for, I don't know, PQ or interactivity.

occasionally on avs there is a moment where somebody just cuts through all the ... and makes total sense. well done!

Here's another example where I feel that you over-reached. There's no need to provide PCM lossless sound on HD DVD when all players decode Dolby TrueHD. That saves quite a bit of space right there. I believe the compression factor is about 2:1, is that correct?
More like 4:1 for movie soundtracks, since many of the channels don't have much going on lots of the time.

More like 4:1 for movie soundtracks, since many of the channels don't have much going on lots of the time.
From what I've seen average compression ratio is about 3:1 for 16bit tracks and about 2:1 for 24bit tracks. Of course a lot depends on the movie. Comedies usually compress noticably better than action movies. Here's an example ("Pirates of the Caribbean II"):

24bit: 6.75Mbps PCM / 3.54Mbps FLAC
16bit: 4.50Mbps PCM / 1.67Mbps FLAC

(FLAC compression ratio is roughly identical to TrueHD).

I don't know where to post this or even if it's okay to post this...meh.

===============================================

Made-up things from the 9th BDA Japan Seminar, 9/14/07...

BD-ROM Part 3 goes from 2.0 to 2.1: answers 12 "issues" such as adding support for 3 consecutive B frames in VC-1 when EPS is <= 1s, defining a new HAVi config for mixing full screen SD with HD planes for subs and graphics (i.e., a mechanism to turn non-HD PiP into fullscreen w/o messing up the planar model), and--in surely the most amazing thing ever done with the number 16 this side of "5 Lusty Lasses Take on the Offensive Starting Lineup of The Denver Broncos"--changing the angle jump restriction from 40k/8k to 640k/128k.

TSG gave an update on ISP (Initial Standard Profile, which is now the official name for Profile 1.0, AKA Grace Period Players) test tools...BDROM-GEM200 is the 2nd issued test disc for GEM conformance...BDROM-JTD200 cover BD-J graphics, UI, sys int and performance testing.

Ditto for FSP and Profile 2 (BD-Live) test discs...the BDROM-STD500N disc covers 60Hz PiP and Secondary Audio testing, blah blah blah. The tidbit to take home is that the test disc for BD-Live, the BDROM-JTD500, which covers BD-J network applications, isn't going to be available until December at the earliest. Hard to certify and release what you can't yet test. Tick, tock.

The VSG has asked the BDA BoD--or whatever they are calling themselves these days--to perform a "market audit" to test for player compatibility with the specs as well as to review the coverage and reliability of the Blu-ray verification testing performed to date...the audit will consist of 9 players from 7 CEs, randomly run through the 8 various TCs, with everything kept anonymous. Don't ask, don't tell.

Someone forgot to tell the Japan arm of the GPC that Paramount was no longer onboard...they were still shown in the credits and they still had Tom Cruise from MI plastered in the graphics.

The Blu-ray Disc License Entity is now the softer, more cuddly BDA License Office.

The GPC had a slide showing "major IT companies supporting BD"...they had the HP logo in the #1 spot, the Dell logo in the #2 spot, the Lenovo logo in the #4 spot...and a big question mark in the #3 spot, where one would expect the Apple logo. I think it's safe to say it was an oversight, and we shouldn't read too much into this.

OMIGAWD! APPLE IS TOTALLY GOING HD DVD!

The GPC has inked a deal with GfK to get oodles of market share and sales data for Blu-ray and HD DVD...they even have a mockup of where the reports will go on the website. Hopefully faster than the TEG2 meeting notes.

GPC focus in the US: "Tactical efforts continue to focus on media outreach and support of key industry events, including 2nd tier press tier...(k)ey messaging continues to focus on undeniable industry support advantage, 2:1 movie share advantage, hardware share advantage, movie share advantage, hardware share resurgence with 2nd gen players, CEDIA announcements, PS3 price move." Who knew an advantage could resurge?

Also on tap for the GPC: tell PS3 owners the things can play movies. Er, "highlight PS3 movie-viewing functionality."

Hitachi went on and on about their new Blu-ray HD camcorders, only to sheepishly note that you can record 4 hours using the HDD in the BD/HDD hybrid DZ-BD7H vs. only 1 hour using a BD-R/E in the DZ-BD7H or the BD-only DZ-BD70...and with better battery life using the HDD recording option. Nice sell there, guys! Obviously the Hitachi guys have been certified in Anti-Marketing 101 by the HD DVD PRG.

Sony highlighted their new "realtime" BAE-VA700 AVC distributed encoder suite, which supports "approximate" realtime AVC encoding for 2 pass VBR 1080p24 content using 7 PC encoders (Dell PE1950 Quad Core Xeon 2.4GHzx2 w/ 4GB RAM) in Quality Mode. In Fast Mode, with 7 units, you get faster-than-realtime encoding, about 0.7x. In Fast Mode with 1 unit, you get the first release of The Fifth Element. As a reference, in Quality Mode, with 1 encoder, it's 6x; with 3 encoders, it's 3.5x. Why the need to get a BAE-VA700? The current trend of encoding "picture quality centric titles realize by high encoding bitrate" must eventually shift to encoding "high quality picture with lower bit rate" to support PiP, BD-Live download clips, etc., thus the need to focus on AVC, thus the need to buy a BAE-VA700. Pretty airtight logic. I'm getting one for XMAS. The BAE-VA700 supports an automatic deblocking filter and partial encoding for post 2nd pass manual tweaks. Still, if you're a total cheapskate, you can pickup the BAE-VM770 MPEG-2 HW Encoder board, but your friends will giggle behind your back. In realtime.

Warner Home Video presented a short deck covering "Expectations for Blu-ray Disc." I say short, because there was actually only one slide, and it was of one of those oversized novelty checks made payable to WHV. For the BDA's sake, it hope the amount due was in Yen.

Finally, there was a GfK presentation. Mostly in Japanese, but at one point, they compared adoption trends between DVD Players and Electric Toilet Sheats (I sheat you not), further comparing attach rates for discs vs. toilet paper. Fascinating stuff. Oh, and to depress everyone, as of July 2007, there were as many UMD titles actively for sale in Japan as there were BD and HD DVD combined. BD continues to stomp HD DVD in Japan, but total next gen disc sales for July 2007 were less than 20,000 units...less than 1,000 HD DVD disc sold through in July. For those bad at math, that means 19,000 BD discs sold through, or 19% more than HD DVD. A 1.9:1 advantage for BD, in other words.

Another GfK tidbit...of U.S consumers intending to purchase a "high definition video player," 33% said HD DVD, 16% said Blu-ray and a whopping 51% said they weren't sure, but they had to have one. Like *right* now. Presumably so they could sit it next to their analog cable box attached to their HDTV via composite. HD rocks!

Oh, and to depress everyone, as of July 2007, there were as many UMD titles actively for sale in Japan as there were BD and HD DVD combined. BD continues to stomp HD DVD in Japan, but total next gen disc sales for July 2007 were less than 20,000 units...less than 1,000 HD DVD disc sold through in July. For those bad at math, that means 19,000 BD discs sold through, or 19% more than HD DVD. A 1.9:1 advantage for BD, in other words.



http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/huh.gif

Who is the one bad at math?

How does 19,000 units sold through for Blu-ray compared to 1000 units sold through for HD-DVD equate to 19% more for Blu-ray or "a 1.9:1 advantage for BD, in other words"?!?!

It would be 1900% more for BD.

It would be a 19.0:1 advantage......not 1.9:1.

Still, the overall sales are pretty damn small.

Who is the one bad at math?I think you fell into Alex's trap...just to get a comment. :p

I think you fell into Alex's trap...just to get a comment. :p

I should know better with Alex.

A profile 1.0 Blu-ray player is missing two hardware features found in HD DVD: secondary audio/video decoders and network connectivity. And they have two features no HD DVD players have: the ability to read 50GB discs and 48Mbps of bandwidth. Which of those feature sets makes a bigger impact on the movie itself? I've already demonstrated that using dual encoding allows the studio to provide PiP capability which 95%+ of the public will find indistinguishable from a version authored using secondary audio/video. Yet HD DVD will never be able to provide a two hour movie authored at an average 25Mb/sec video bitrate plus a lossless PCM English soundtrack plus three TrueHD foreign language soundtracks plus bonus content, as you'll exceed both the maximum bitrate and the capacity of a 30GB disc. The fact that all Blu-ray players don't include a secondary decoder is unfortunate, yet it's trivial relative to the much greater limitations of HD DVD's basic bandwidth and capacity deficiencies.

1. The two missing features you listed are apparently the two big features that studios are looking for *right now*...Studios think snazzy extras are the way to get the masses to buy into HDM. You make it sound like these are inconsequential.

2. Is there any demand whatsoever in this region for 4 lossless audio tracks on one disc? I don't want to watch Terminator 2 in lossless Argentinian where one guy is doign the voices for John, Sarah and Arnold. Give me the native track in lossless and put everything else in dd 384 kbps. I'm pretty sure no one is going to care.

3. Why does the HDDVD doesn't have bandwidth deflection keep coming up in every BDA member's post? I really don't get it. HD-DVD has shown that they can do long movies just fine. How many 3 hour movies are released each year anyway?

Who is the one bad at math?Sir, you dare question my mathematical prowess?!?

I should think 8 years at a 2 year community college should qualify for some modicum of numerical respect!

And to think, I was preparing to develop graphs and charts for the benefit of those with a less fungible grip on analyzing data...

(I still hope some levity is allowed here)

(I still hope some levity is allowed here)

:)

Sir, you dare question my mathematical prowess?!?

I should think 8 years at a 2 year community college should quality for some modicum of numerical respect!

And to think, I was preparing to develop graphs and charts for the benefit of those with a less fungible grip on analyzing data...




:p

(This is not a cut-n-dry Q for an Insider, but rather a continuation of feedback I've given previously, hence I'm posting it here rather than in the Insider's thread)

Today at Sam's Club I watched the entire Blu Ray promotional disc play thru. In the section entitled "Advanced Interactivity" it it shows what appears to be a secondary video stream. In addition it CLEARLY shows additional secondary video content being downloaded from the internet and played (it even shows a downloaded completion percentage and bar-graph indicator).

This was being demonstrated on a Sony BDP-S301 (Sam's flavor of a BDP 300, I believe). It has no ethernet connection (I looked). I also don't believe it to be 1.1/FinalStandardProfile/BonusView capable. And it certainly didn't say anything about such things in the video, on the placard, or on the box. There are no other players even known to be capable of such things, not only in this store, but anywhere.

The disc was certainly current, and intended to be played on hardware out NOW. The instructions silk-screened on the label of the disc said it was valid for demo purposes thru December of 2007, but was not to be played after that.

Please explain.

Sir, you dare question my mathematical prowess?!?

I should think 8 years at a 2 year community college should qualify for some modicum of numerical respect!

And to think, I was preparing to develop graphs and charts for the benefit of those with a less fungible grip on analyzing data...

(I still hope some levity is allowed here)

On a scale of 1 - 10 you clearly rate a 12. That's 2 times better than the average poster, or is it 2% better. I get confused. :D

Thanks for adding some levity. :)

On a scale of 1 - 10 you clearly rate a 12. That's 2 times better than the average poster, or is it 2% better. I get confused. :D

Thanks for adding some levity. :)

2% better. Definitely 2%.

I hate to lend any credibility to this (and some of the items are purely made up), but for the sake of not furthering any ridiculous rumors, I'll clarify one point:

The GPC had a slide showing "major IT companies supporting BD"...they had the HP logo in the #1 spot, the Dell logo in the #2 spot, the Lenovo logo in the #4 spot...and a big question mark in the #3 spot, where one would expect the Apple logo. I think it's safe to say it was an oversight, and we shouldn't read too much into this.The #3 spot was for Acer, which had not yet announced their joining the BDA. It has nothing to do with Apple.

Today at Sam's Club I watched the entire Blu Ray promotional disc play thru. In the section entitled "Advanced Interactivity" it it shows what appears to be a secondary video stream. In addition it CLEARLY shows additional secondary video content being downloaded from the internet and played (it even shows a downloaded completion percentage and bar-graph indicator).

This was being demonstrated on a Sony BDP-S301 (Sam's flavor of a BDP 300, I believe). It has no ethernet connection (I looked).

Please explain.It is a Blu-ray Disc format demo, not a demo of the capabilities of the particular player it was playing on. I understand that you consider this misleading, but I'm not willing to enter into another circular round of discussions on this topic.

It is a Blu-ray Disc format demo, not a demo of the capabilities of the particular player it was playing on. I understand that you consider this misleading, but I'm not willing to enter into another circular round of discussions on this topic.

Should we expect the BD-Live functionality shown in this demo to be available to the consumer this year? If so, any idea which month we should expect to be able to purchase it?

2. Is there any demand whatsoever in this region for 4 lossless audio tracks on one disc? I don't want to watch Terminator 2 in lossless Argentinian where one guy is doign the voices for John, Sarah and Arnold. Give me the native track in lossless and put everything else in dd 384 kbps. I'm pretty sure no one is going to care.


What is Argentinian? Is that anything like Canadian?

Should we expect the BD-Live functionality shown in this demo to be available to the consumer this year? If so, any idea which month we should expect to be able to purchase it?There is already hardware available which will eventually support BD-Live through a firmware update; I don't know whether any players will be released with full BD-Live support before the end of the year. The first BD-Live software title I'm aware of is scheduled to be released on January 1st.

What is Argentinian? Is that anything like Canadian?

More like Australian.

There is already hardware available which will eventually support BD-Live through a firmware update; I don't know whether any players will be released with full BD-Live support before the end of the year. The first BD-Live software title I'm aware of is scheduled to be released on January 1st.

Thanks Talk. I didn't know a title was coming so soon. Can you tell us the name of the first BD-Live title?

Should we expect BD-Live players to be available in January that can use this web enabled content?

2. Is there any demand whatsoever in this region for 4 lossless audio tracks on one disc? I don't want to watch Terminator 2 in lossless Argentinian where one guy is doign the voices for John, Sarah and Arnold. Give me the native track in lossless and put everything else in dd 384 kbps. I'm pretty sure no one is going to care.

No, no, no!!! I want my Swahili, Flemish, Romansh, Punjabi, Romanian, Klingon, Wookie, Cylon, Vulcan, and Ferengue tracks ALL TO BE LOSSLESS! :mad:



:rolleyes:

What is Argentinian? Is that anything like Canadian?

LOLOLOL

Argentinian is the official language spoken in Argentina... the beautiful land of Tango, Gardel, Maradona and that nice hot tea inside an odd looking pod that you suck from a metallic kind of straw (no, it does not make you see things, just tastes funny). Climb a few miles over the pampas and you'll get to Brazil (my homeland!) ...the home of Antonio Carlos Jobim, Gisele Bündchen (with an unbrazilian umlaut), Samba and the Bum-Bum. There you'll find 200 million people who speak Brazilian. Nice, eh? Now let's keep on climbing and climbing and climbing and... oops... there's Panamá (which was named after a famous Van Hallen song) ...there you'll find lots people who speak Panamenian (which seems to be very similar to Armenian) and, of course, that big river with swimming pools big enough to fit a tanker. Then Mexico, where the President is an ardent Blu-ray supporter and where everybody speaks Mexican.

I hope everybody here will understand my text.
I'm not good writing in American.

LOL

Thanks Talk. I didn't know a title was coming so soon. Can you tell us the name of the first BD-Live title?Sure. "War" from Lionsgate (at least based on features demonstrated recently, though to be fair it was not a final disc yet so I suppose features are still subject to change.
Should we expect BD-Live players to be available in January that can use this web enabled content?That is my expectation.

No, no, no!!! I want my Swahili, Flemish, Romansh, Punjabi, Romanian, Klingon, Wookie, Cylon, Vulcan, and Ferengue tracks ALL TO BE LOSSLESS! :mad:

:rolleyes:

Hey... how about a Star Trek with a lossless Klingon soundtrack?
The trekkies would go nuts! (except for the Blu-trekkies who would go mass suicidal... or wait)

LOLOLOL
:rolleyes:

There is already hardware available which will eventually support BD-Live through a firmware update; I don't know whether any players will be released with full BD-Live support before the end of the year. The first BD-Live software title I'm aware of is scheduled to be released on January 1st. (emphasis mine)

Previously any discussion of future capability had always been dicussed as "potential". This inlcuded the PS3.

You are stating now that there is hardware available that WILL be live capable. Is this the PS3?

Sure. "War" from Lionsgate (at least based on features demonstrated recently, though to be fair it was not a final disc yet so I suppose features are still subject to change.
That is my expectation.

With 'War,' Lionsgate is now the second Blu-ray studio to announce a Profile 1.1-compatible Blu-ray title. (Late last month, Fox confirmed plans to issue 'Sunshine' as its first Profile 1.1-compatible Blu-ray title on January 8.)

In addition to the PIP content on 'War,' other Blu-ray exclusives include the BD-Java-enhanced interactive game "Yakuza Fighter," a "Blu-Line Slider" interface that allows for enhanced scene access, a custom bookmarking function, and what Lionsgate is calling "dynamic resizing" menu navigation.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Lionsgate/Exclusive_HD_Content/Disc_Announcements/Lionsgate_Goes_Profile_1.1_with_War_Blu-ray/1164

I don't see anything mentioned about IF. AFAIK the only two 2.0 titles announced so far are Sleeping Beauty and Tinkerbell - both to street in the Oct. 2008 time frame.

Is this incorrect?

(and some of the items are purely made up)Please list the "purely made up" items so that we can all see the truth. My *commentary* is purely made up, I grant you that, but I don't think I made up any of the actual items. The again, the mind does tend to wander...

The #3 spot was for Acer, which had not yet announced their joining the BDA.Well, the presentation date was 9/14/07, and Acer formally announced 8/30/07:

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070830005470&newsLang=en

I guess two weeks isn't enough leadtime for Komai-san. Maybe he was too busy removing references to Paramount and their movies? Wait, that can't be it.

And why leave off Apple? Are they not a "Major IT Company"? Seems silly to affront a BDA board member, even if they aren't in the top 4.

(and for Pete's sake, you realize the Apple dig was a joke, right?)

I always read what alex posts as truth with sarcasm and jokes sprinkled in...

Attempts to cover up to the contrary :rolleyes:

(emphasis mine)

Previously any discussion of future capability had always been dicussed as "potential". This inlcuded the PS3.

You are stating now that there is hardware available that WILL be live capable. Is this the PS3?

I'd be interested to hear Talk's respond to this question also.

My belief is that the first two players shipping that will support BD-Live (2.0) are the LG BH-200 and Samsung BD-UP5000 universal players. Both already have the necessary hardware to support BD-Live due to the requirements for supporting HD DVD.

The PS3 is the only other player I have heard of that has the necessary hardware to support BD-Live (2.0). There's been no definitive word from Sony on a software upgrade for this. They have, however, commented about adding more interactive functionality.

I always read what alex posts as truth with sarcasm and jokes sprinkled in...

Attempts to cover up to the contrary :rolleyes:

Whereas for me I read it as sarcasm and satire with some truth sprinkled in. ;)

Previously any discussion of future capability had always been dicussed as "potential". This inlcuded the PS3. You are stating now that there is hardware available that WILL be live capable. Is this the PS3?I have not made any statements regarding the PS3, but stand by my statement that hardware is available today which will be BD Live capable in the future.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Lionsgate/Exclusive_HD_Content/Disc_Announcements/Lionsgate_Goes_Profile_1.1_with_War_Blu-ray/1164

I don't see anything mentioned about IF. AFAIK the only two 2.0 titles announced so far are Sleeping Beauty and Tinkerbell - both to street in the Oct. 2008 time frame.

Is this incorrect?The BD-J game listed as one of the features of War has been demoed with some network-enabled features requiring BD Live support. It's certainly possible the network-enabled features could get dropped prior to release, however, which may be why this hasn't been announced as a BD Live title.

Please list the "purely made up" items so that we can all see the truth. My *commentary* is purely made up, I grant you that, but I don't think I made up any of the actual items.I'm unwilling to confirm or refute your post on a point-by-point basis, as what you've posted is protected under an NDA and is only intended for BDA member companies. However, by way of example I'll point out that you stated:
Warner Home Video presented a short deck covering "Expectations for Blu-ray Disc." I say short, because there was actually only one slidewas actually a 23 slide deck, which certainly conveys a very different message regarding Warner's support for the format.
And why leave off Apple? Are they not a "Major IT Company"? Seems silly to affront a BDA board member, even if they aren't in the top 4.They're ranked seventh on a worldwide basis (based on 2006 numbers), so they simply weren't relevant to the point being made (that the top four global PC vendors all support Blu-ray).
(and for Pete's sake, you realize the Apple dig was a joke, right?)I do, but do you dispute that there are others here who will take that joke and run with it as speculation?

I do, but do you dispute that there are others here who will take that joke and run with it as speculation?


Oh yes and THAT is funny:p

I have not made any statements regarding the PS3, but stand by my statement that hardware is available today which will be BD Live capable in the future.

Fair enuff that you don't want to pre-empt a hardware manufacturer.

But this IS a change of message, right? Previously you have always been very careful to qualify your statements that avaialable hardware MAY be upgradable to later profiles. Now you are stating WILL.

Don't ge tme wrong... I think this could be positive, I just want to make sure I'm not mis-reading.

Thanks.

My *commentary* is purely made up, I grant you that, but I don't think I made up any of the actual items.Alex, as someone who is interested in Blu-ray I think the problem is that is that you tend to put the facts and the jokes side by side in your posts. As such it is sometimes hard to know if something is meant to be an actual item or if it was just meant as a joke.


The BD-J game listed as one of the features of War has been demoed with some network-enabled features requiring BD Live support. It's certainly possible the network-enabled features could get dropped prior to release, however, which may be why this hasn't been announced as a BD Live title.Talkstr8t, best be careful about posting about that since some posters are always on the look out to attack Blu-ray and if that feature isn't included on the disc those posters will be sure to make a fuss about it later on.

I have not made any statements regarding the PS3, but stand by my statement that hardware is available today which will be BD Live capable in the future.

Well the LG BH-200 universal player is available today, and LG has publicly announced that it will support BD-Live. Did you have a different piece of hardware in mind?

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/lg-intros-999-bh200-super-blu-combo-hd-player-296503.php

It will be able to play audio CDs, and go online for bonus HD DVD content. It can also access a full complement of Blu-ray interactive features—where available—such as BD-Live, Blu-View or Picture-in-Picture.

I'm unwilling to confirm or refute your post on a point-by-point basis, as what you've posted is protected under an NDA and is only intended for BDA member companies. However, by way of example I'll point out that you stated:
was actually a 23 slide deck, which certainly conveys a very different message regarding Warner's support for the format.
They're ranked seventh on a worldwide basis (based on 2006 numbers), so they simply weren't relevant to the point being made (that the top four global PC vendors all support Blu-ray).
I do, but do you dispute that there are others here who will take that joke and run with it as speculation?
the "protected under NDA" is why alex is always so vague and cryptic...some of us realize that...let's see if they come after alex now and he'll disappear or be 'reassigned' ;)

It is a Blu-ray Disc format demo, not a demo of the capabilities of the particular player it was playing on. I understand that you consider this misleading, but I'm not willing to enter into another circular round of discussions on this topic.

Fair enough.

You've pointed out we are finally seeing some disclosure on players regarding capability (FSP , BonusView, etc...). Apparently it's up to the manufacturer to decide how to advertise their players feature sets.

So what will media say, if anything?

Will a disk have a asterix/footnote for one of it's bullet-listed features that says "Final Standard Profile Player required"?

If so, then how will confusion be avoided if there's no requrement for the deck manufacturer to not call it "Bonus View" instead?

If media will NOT be labeled, then we may have to go back to that circular discussion, Talk. ;)

the "protected under NDA" is why alex is always so vague and cryptic...some of us realize that...let's see if they come after alex now and he'll disappear or be 'reassigned' ;)

I didn't think Alex was subject to any NDA?

if the information is under nda, someone disclosed what they shouldn't have...that's all i meant :)

if the information is under nda, someone disclosed what they shouldn't have...that's all i meant :)

Got ya.

I didn't think Alex was subject to any NDA?Alex is not a BDA Member. Either he has a password to the BDA member site or he has a friend at a member company who is forwarding these documents to him. In either case it's improper (at a minimum) for him to be posting the information here, however interesting some of you may find it.

Alex is not a BDA Member. Either he has a password to the BDA member site or he has a friend at a member company who is forwarding these documents to him. In either case it's improper (at a minimum) for him to be posting the information here, however interesting some of you may find it.

Alex, it looks like your days are numbered.

You've pointed out we are finally seeing some disclosure on players regarding capability (FSP , BonusView, etc...). Apparently it's up to the manufacturer to decide how to advertise their players feature sets.

So what will media say, if anything? Will a disk have a asterix/footnote for one of it's bullet-listed features that says "Final Standard Profile Player required"?More likely "Bonus View support required". The studio execs I've spoken with have indicated they'll be very conservative about how to advertise features which may not be supported on all players. One even said they may leave those features off the box.

The BD-J game listed as one of the features of War has been demoed with some network-enabled features requiring BD Live support. It's certainly possible the network-enabled features could get dropped prior to release, however, which may be why this hasn't been announced as a BD Live title.

This is exactly the things that bothers me about the "technologically superior" BD format. If it is so great, why are things getting dropped from discs or just not being there in the first place?

Alex is not a BDA Member. Either he has a password to the BDA member site or he has a friend at a member company who is forwarding these documents to him. In either case it's improper (at a minimum) for him to be posting the information here, however interesting some of you may find it.

If he isn't a member he can't break the NDA, and he can post anything he wants, as long as the admin doesn't stop him. One the info is in the wild it's free speech. Maybe you guys should police yourselves a little better.

A profile 1.0 Blu-ray player is missing two hardware features found in HD DVD: secondary audio/video decoders and network connectivity. And they have two features no HD DVD players have: the ability to read 50GB discs and 48Mbps of bandwidth. Which means that a HD DVD player can play 300 and the features and they had to be removed or faked for the BD. You know full well that 48 mbps is not needed to player these audio and video codecs. It isn't even really helpful to have that kind of bandwidth for VC-1 or AVC, and mpeg2 can also look great at much less.

If he isn't a member he can't break the NDA, and he can post anything he wants, as long as the admin doesn't stop him. One the info is in the wild it's free speech. Maybe you guys should police yourselves a little better.

Free speech?

Uh....ok! :rolleyes:

Free speech?

Uh....ok! :rolleyes:

Let's put it another way. This person can start their own site and post it at will unless the DBA takes them to court and gets a judge to say otherwise. That's pretty much as free as speech can get.

Let's put it another way. This person can start their own site and post it at will unless the DBA takes them to court and gets a judge to say otherwise. That's pretty much as free as speech can get.

That's like saying that I am free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), unless someone stops me from doing it.... and reaching the conclusion that "that's pretty much as free as speech can get".

That's like saying that I am free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire), unless someone stops me from doing it.... and reaching the conclusion that "that's pretty much as free as speech can get".No one is yelling fire or anything else. An individual posted unsubstantiated info from an unknown source. Then it got somewhat confirmed. Maybe the person that somewhat confirmed it and gave it the weight it presently has shouldn't have done that.;)

More likely "Bonus View support required". The studio execs I've spoken with have indicated they'll be very conservative about how to advertise features which may not be supported on all players. One even said they may leave those features off the box.

So, there's no guarantee that the media and deck will match in describing what feature/support is present or required?

Why didn't they just institute a logo, like for DD, etc?

And it seems once again, that the mess that is profiles is causing another lowest-comomn-denominator approach. These features may not even be mentioned by some studios, due to uncertainty as to what the end user will have (or even be aware of).

It really seems to be a mess.

Alex is not a BDA Member. Either he has a password to the BDA member site or he has a friend at a member company who is forwarding these documents to him. In either case it's improper (at a minimum) for him to be posting the information here, however interesting some of you may find it.

Too bad that if it weren't for several "unofficial" sources of BDA info, we'd have very little real fact on several fronts. :(

More likely "Bonus View support required". The studio execs I've spoken with have indicated they'll be very conservative about how to advertise features which may not be supported on all players. One even said they may leave those features off the box.
If they can't promote it, why bother. They might as well stick with what they can promote.

That's like saying that I am free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater

Actually no, its nothing like that at all.

Talk... I'm sure you figure that I simply have an agenda regarding Blu Ray and profiles.

Well, actually I do: to try and get folks on the BDA team to recognize how this likely comes across to consumers. And it seems like no matter than accepting that feedback, by and large it's "explained away". Or some discussion about how it really isn't a big deal ensues.

Either way, it's ultimately no skin off my nose. I'm not the one with much to lose.

In any case, in an effort to help you to realize that the issues surrounding profiles is likely to be construed by a number of people, namely early adopters who unknowingly dropped significant cash on a deck that's only 1.0 due to lack of BDA disclosure, as a smurf-job, I present the following info I shamelessly stole from I RockSoAwesome's post in the news thread:

Tech.co.uk Blu Ray article. (http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/video/dvd-hdd-players-and-receivers/blu-ray-and-hd-dvd/news/blu-ray-11-a-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen?articleid=1402030689)

A fun quote: "Early adopters of Blu-ray Disc could be so incensed by changes being made to 'their' movie format that they could sue Hollywood studios and hardware makers alike.

This is because many Blu-ray movies being launched next year have interactive menus and other features that take advantage of BD-Video Final Standard Profile 1.1 - a new hardware standard that mandates technology like persistent memory, BD Java and internet connections (optional) that older Blu-ray decks do not have."


See? Despite my general paranoia and stupidity, I'm not alone in realizing that pissing off those aforementioned early adopters may have not been a good idea... even if the article did get some profile details mixed up (but hey, so have you and I!) Talk seemed to believe that studios are concerned about that kind of thing or at least upsetting customers because of features they can't use. 1.1 and 2.0 will give retailers a fit.

Alex is not a BDA Member. Either he has a password to the BDA member site or he has a friend at a member company who is forwarding these documents to him.Don't know if it is true but as far back as I can remember Alex has always implied that he was able to hack into the BDA member site and has joked a few times that the ones who made it were overpayed.


In either case it's improper (at a minimum) for him to be posting the information here, however interesting some of you may find it.Very few posters are going to see it that way and as long as what he posts is accurate that is all that most posters will care about. Look at it this way the 18 month $150 million business deal with Paramount/Dreamworks was most definitely confidential but it still became known to the public. As such in terms of leaking of confidential information the road goes both ways and sometimes it will hurt Blu-ray and sometimes it will help Blu-ray.


You know full well that 48 mbps is not needed to player these audio and video codecs.Slim, if you want to believe that the larger capacity and higher bandwidth of Blu-ray provide no benefit you can of course do that but that would be a personal opinion. Just my personal opinion but the percentage of Blu-ray and HD DVD titles with lossless audio seems to indicate that those differences do make a difference.


An individual posted unsubstantiated info from an unknown source. Then it got somewhat confirmed. Maybe the person that somewhat confirmed it and gave it the weight it presently has shouldn't have done that.I would consider confirming one thing and denying another to be a bit of a mixed bag. Also considering that insiders on both sides of this format war are under NDA would you prefer it if Talkstr8t didn't comment on the things that he can post about?

I would consider confirming one thing and denying another to be a bit of a mixed bag. Also considering that insiders on both sides of this format war are under NDA would you prefer it if Talkstr8t didn't comment on the things that he can post about?
I am not a lawyer so please don't this as any kind of legal opinion :). With that said, NDAs have a common provision which stipulates if the information becomes public through other means, the non-disclosure obligation goes away for the party signing it. After all, it would be silly to say something is confidential, if the whole world knows about it through other means.

Given the above, I don't think Talk is under any kind of NDA obligations to comment on what is stated by Alex. He may be under moral obligation to stay silent (or getting his feet shot if he says something with BDA PR approving it :) ), but not a legal one. Mind you, I think a moral obligation in my book is even more important than the legal one so I do understand his position if that is the reason his lips are closed.

More likely "Bonus View support required". The studio execs I've spoken with have indicated they'll be very conservative about how to advertise features which may not be supported on all players. One even said they may leave those features off the box.

Let me see if I got it right...
A huge company like Disney or Fox... or Warner... with lots of G-rated to R-rated blockbusters; who spends thousands (if not more) on the production of extras; with marketing teams fighting hard to give kids the promise of the bigger extra bang (the bang that may well represent $50 million more in DVD sales against a competing title from another studio)...

...will not advertise that bang and will even dismiss it?

Did I read you right?

NOTE:
Am I the only one here to foresee the soon to come golden age of the Easter Egg? :D
If I were a mean person (which I'm not), I'd say that while HD DVD is delivering next generation extras, Blu-ray's contribution to home video will be the next generation Easter Egg.

Amir, I saw Shrek III this evening on my XA2 fw 2.7, breathtaking transfer! :)

I believe the upgraded VC-1 used on this movie to be your child... bravo.

I understand you are no longer with that department but care to comment on the differences / upgrades that took place ?

Am also told an entirely "new" VC-1 is in the pipes for Q1, 2008, is this true? Any comments?

Gianmarco

Talk... I'm sure you figure that I simply have an agenda regarding Blu Ray and profiles.

Well, actually I do: to try and get folks on the BDA team to recognize how this likely comes across to consumers. And it seems like no matter what, rather than accepting that feedback by and large it's "explained away". Or some discussion about how it really isn't a big deal ensues.

Either way, it's ultimately no skin off my nose. I'm not the one with much to lose.

In any case, in an effort to help you to realize that the issues surrounding profiles is likely to be construed by a number of people, namely early adopters who unknowingly dropped significant cash on a deck that's only 1.0 due to lack of BDA disclosure, as a smurf-job, I present the following info I shamelessly stole from I RockSoAwesome's post in the news thread:

Tech.co.uk Blu Ray article.

A fun quote:


Quote:
"Early adopters of Blu-ray Disc could be so incensed by changes being made to 'their' movie format that they could sue Hollywood studios and hardware makers alike.

This is because many Blu-ray movies being launched next year have interactive menus and other features that take advantage of BD-Video Final Standard Profile 1.1 - a new hardware standard that mandates technology like persistent memory, BD Java and internet connections (optional) that older Blu-ray decks do not have."


See? Despite my general paranoia and stupidity, I'm not alone in realizing that pissing off those aforementioned early adopters may have not been a good idea... even if the article did get some profile details mixed up (but hey, so have you and I!)

Fun quote #2:


Quote:
"The first people who will buy your Blu-ray player are early adopters, the tech guys and so on. The ones who love new technology and features. They want the best. They are the ones who make the reputation of the format, of the product... those people are very important from the start.

"You'd better have those people on your side, for you rather than against you, because a small pool can make a large noise. And if those people make too much noise then the majority won't buy your product.

If those people start writing on the internet 'I bought this movie from Fox and it won't play. it's a rip-off, but nobody will take any responsibility - retailers are blaming the studios, studios are blaming the playback device' - then it could get nasty very quickly."


Help ME, help YOU, Talk.
__________________
-Steve


OH boy. Sounds like the bda group should shut down for a year and get there act together and release completed specs before they start selling the hardware.

__SNIP__


OH boy. Sounds like the bda group should shut down for a year and get there act together and release completed specs before they start selling the hardware.

I'm not sure if you are being facetious or not.

At this point I'm sure closing up shop is not a valid option, and I can appreciate that. My point has always been that disclosure to the consumer about what he is buying is the issue. Especially when somebody is dropping 4-digit sums for the hardware.

People who are informed about their eaaly adopter status will buy in. People who feel like they got taken in a bait-n-switch scheme will get pissed.

At this point I'm sure closing up shop is not a valid option, and I can appreciate that. My point has always been that disclosure to the consumer about what he is buying is the issue. Especially when somebody is dropping 4-digit sums for the hardware.

People who are informed about their eaaly adopter status will buy in. People who feel like they got taken in a bait-n-switch scheme will get pissed.

Totally agree...
And I would add that the format war (and the PS3) rushed everything into mass market. Lots of people who will buy a BD stand alone player this Christmas for $380 with Spiderman and Die Hard do NOT know they are being treated as early adopters.

Totally agree...
And I would add that the format war (and the PS3) rushed everything into mass market. Lots of people who will buy a BD stand alone player this Christmas for $380 with Spiderman and Die Hard do NOT know they are being treated as early adopters.

Who is going to tell Timmy that he cant access the extra features on his movies. Can you imagine how upset the whole family will feel?

This is serious. It could haunt the BDA bigtime.

Who is going to tell Timmy that he cant access the extra features on his movies. Can you imagine how upset the whole family will feel?

This is serious. It could haunt the BDA bigtime.

It is serious. I've been asking about it for months, and it's the reason I did not purchase a BD player this past summer even though that was my first inclination. I've asked about it here and even started a thread that had little response.

In asking, I've been told that the features aren't that important, that it's about the movie. Another response about this from an insider was that this was a much bigger issue at AVS than it was to those in the industry.

I just don't see how a studio plans to invest in 2.0 features when a subset will work in 1.0 players, a larger subset will work in 1.1 players, and the complete feature set will work in 2.0 players. How would they effectively market that?

Allow me to apologize for the usage of the word "agenda" in my post that got deleted.

My goal was to illustrate that I do NOT have an anti-BDA agenda. My only goal was to help provide feedback regarding consumer viewpoint.

Heck, most of my post weren't even MY comments, but rather those of an article. Nonetheless, it was not designed to incite.

Who is going to tell Timmy that he cant access the extra features on his movies. Can you imagine how upset the whole family will feel?

This is serious. It could haunt the BDA bigtime.

Now it's clear that you are being sarcastic in your comments.

Regardless of how you, I, or J6P feels about extra features, one of the FEW points about which there is no disagreement from BOTH sides is that next-gen interactivity an features were very important to studios. There's even some evidence that it was these features that were a significant deciding factor in what format a studio decided to support.

Now to have a fractured player user base wherein a studio can't risk promoting the new features on their title without risking alienating a significant segment of the consumer is serious. There are studios spending millions on this.

[...]After all, it would be silly to say something is confidential, if the whole world knows about it through other means.[...]

Yet it remains a common practice by the US Govt (Area 51 anyone?)..:D

So, there's no guarantee that the media and deck will match in describing what feature/support is present or required?

Why didn't they just institute a logo, like for DD, etc?

And it seems once again, that the mess that is profiles is causing another lowest-comomn-denominator approach. These features may not even be mentioned by some studios, due to uncertainty as to what the end user will have (or even be aware of).

It really seems to be a mess.

Add it to the list: Bluetooth, HDMI, etc.

No wonder the consumer is distrustful...when will these companies get it?

was actually a 23 slide deck, which certainly conveys a very different message regarding Warner's support for the format.I guess 23 slides about Warner's support for Blu-ray *would* convey a different message.

Unfortunately, of the 23 slides, only 4 slides contain anything substantive about Blu-ray (assuming a slide telling us who supports Blu-ray for the 1,000th time is substantive), and 2 of those 4 actually make Blu-ray look a bit behind the curve, as no Blu-ray players can (yet) do everything that Warner apparently considers "Required Features and Specifications" for a next gen format. The rest of the deck was Warner reminding everyone how great they are and that DVD is trending down.

Not to labor the point, but I just wanted to point out that sometimes neither of us paint an accurate, non-biased picture. ;)

They're ranked seventh on a worldwide basis (based on 2006 numbers), so they simply weren't relevant to the point being made (that the top four global PC vendors all support Blu-ray).Probably should have titled the slide "Top 4 Global PC Vendors Supporting BD" then, instead of "Major IT Companies Supporting BD." I'm sure Apple cried the whole ride home. At least Warner had the good sense to list all of the PC companies supporting BD in their deck. In alphabetical order, no less. Very...diplomatic.

I do, but do you dispute that there are others here who will take that joke and run with it as speculation?Point well taken.

The whole obfuscated profile mes is what has and will prevent me from buying a standalone BD plasyer and the PS3 just is not an option. Good job Blu-Ray team.

The whole obfuscated profile mes is what has and will prevent me from buying a standalone BD plasyer and the PS3 just is not an option. Good job Blu-Ray team.

That is why I can't recomend anyone to go neutral if they have a hddvd player at this point. I woudn't recomend anyone get a blu player unless they know they wont be able to use some of the advanced features on upcomming releases.

This is exactly the things that bothers me about the "technologically superior" BD format. If it is so great, why are things getting dropped from discs or just not being there in the first place?It's commonplace for features to be modified or dropped prior to release of a disk, whether on DVD, HD DVD, or Blu-ray. Sometimes the feature doesn't get done in time, sometimes there's not enough disk capacity or bandwidth, sometimes there are compatibility issues. Given the relative lack of maturity of interactivity for both Blu-ray and HD DVD dropped features are especially common.

Same issue with the plethora of FW updates, I suppose

So, there's no guarantee that the media and deck will match in describing what feature/support is present or required? Why didn't they just institute a logo, like for DD, etc?There is a logo, but just putting the logo on the content doesn't provide details as to which features may require Bonus View (or BD Live) support and which don't.
And it seems once again, that the mess that is profiles is causing another lowest-comomn-denominator approach. These features may not even be mentioned by some studios, due to uncertainty as to what the end user will have (or even be aware of).Now to have a fractured player user base wherein a studio can't risk promoting the new features on their title without risking alienating a significant segment of the consumer is serious. There are studios spending millions on this.
A lowest common denominator approach would mean the studios wouldn't offer these features. Clearly they will be offering them. Promotion of the features is a short-term issue; it's likely that by the end of this year a majority of the installed Blu-ray base will have Bonus View capability while the content which requires it will only start to be appearing. By the time Bonus View content is routinely appearing on new discs I'd estimate 90% of the installed base will be capable of supporting it and the studios will be less measured in their promotion. Yes, it's unfortunate that some segment of the installed base won't have access to a subset of bonus features in the exact same manner that the rest of the installed base will have access. We clearly disagree on the magnitude of the issue, however, and since we are basically rehashing old territory, I've said most of what I plan to.

That is why I can't recomend anyone to go neutral if they have a hddvd player at this point. I woudn't recomend anyone get a blu player unless they know they wont be able to use some of the advanced features on upcomming releases.The evidence suggests most consumers are far more interested in watching the primary movie (and most-to-all of the bonus content) for Pirates, Spiderman, Cars, Ratatouille, and a few hundred other Blu-ray exclusive titles than they are missing out altogether on Fox, Disney, Sony, and MGM content because at some point there will be a few picture-in-picture features which they may not have access to. Of course, they can also get a Panasonic DMP-BD30 and not risk missing out on secondary video, either.

Allow me to apologize for the usage of the word "agenda" in my post that got deleted.

My goal was to illustrate that I do NOT have an anti-BDA agenda. My only goal was to help provide feedback regarding consumer viewpoint.

Heck, most of my post weren't even MY comments, but rather those of an article. Nonetheless, it was not designed to incite.The "article" you referenced is nothing more than a rehash of statements from a European HD DVD PRG spokesperson who is either woefully misinformed, purposely spewing false information, or both. I'll follow-up in that thread.

The evidence suggests most consumers are far more interested in watching the primary movie (and most-to-all of the bonus content) for Pirates, Spiderman, Cars, Ratatouille, and a few hundred other Blu-ray exclusive titles than they are missing out altogether on Fox, Disney, Sony, and MGM content because at some point there will be a few picture-in-picture features which they may not have access to.Are you saying that someone did a survey that asked consumers the question "are you more interested in watching movies from Fox, Sony, Disney and MGM without PIP, or not watch any of these movies at all? Can you provide source for this "evidence"?

Or are you saying that, because 250K consumers bought initial standard profile players, that constitutes proof that "most consumers" are "far more interested" in watching the primary movie over having no movies at all?

There is a logo, but just putting the logo on the content doesn't provide details as to which features may require Bonus View (or BD Live) support and which don't.

No offense, but I hope you're wrong that no clear indications will be used on players and discs that implement Bonus View and BD Live features. How is the public supposed to know what they're buying if it's not spelled out on the packaging and the materials (such as details pages on etailer web sites)?

In sales, the second last thing you want to do is confuse the customer, and that's what this seems to be shaping up to do.

The very last thing you want to do is tick them off, which brings us to...

A lowest common denominator approach would mean the studios wouldn't offer these features. Clearly they will be offering them. Promotion of the features is a short-term issue; it's likely that by the end of this year a majority of the installed Blu-ray base will have Bonus View capability while the content which requires it will only start to be appearing. By the time Bonus View content is routinely appearing on new discs I'd estimate 90% of the installed base will be capable of supporting it and the studios will be less measured in their promotion. Yes, it's unfortunate that some segment of the installed base won't have access to a subset of bonus features in the exact same manner that the rest of the installed base will have access. We clearly disagree on the magnitude of the issue, however, and since we are basically rehashing old territory, I've said most of what I plan to.

What I'm taking from this paragraph is that the PS3 will have Bonus View and BD Live capability, as it is my understanding that the PS3 constitutes a significantly large percentage of the Blu-ray players sold.

While that's great news for the PS3 owners out there, it's not great news for the rest of the Blu-ray player owners. Some of these people paid princely sums of money to enjoy all that the Blu-ray format has to offer, and either through informed choice, blissful ignorance on their part, or confusion/obfuscation on the part of the player manufacturers, they have purchased a player that will never fully realize the potential of the format.

Part of that has to be chalked up to the risks involved in being early adopters, but I don't think many people are going to see it that way. This lack of format maturity is the primary reason that I have yet to purchase a Blu-ray player, and combining that fact with the high prices of all the players is the primary reason I cannot in good conscience recommend purchasing one to anyone else (I am currently responsible for at least 5 HD DVD player purchases by myself and family/friends over the past year or so).

If any Blu-ray CE manufacturers or studios are reading these comments, please don't underestimate the impact that confusing the buying public will have on future sales and also the impact of the optional features and multiple profiles and how they are implemented on all the players sold so far will have on customer satisfaction.

People need an easy to understand way to know what they are buying. A "Bonus View" and "BD Live" logo is a great idea, and in this day and age of Internet access, explaining the meaning of these logos isn't that difficult to accomplish on a web site.

At this point, I'm thinking that some sort of grid is going to be necessary to track all the variables involved in the purchase:

Are you saying that someone did a survey that asked consumers the question "are you more interested in watching movies from Fox, Sony, Disney and MGM without PIP, or not watch any of these movies at all? Can you provide source for this "evidence"?

Or are you saying that, because 250K consumers bought initial standard profile players, that constitutes proof that "most consumers" are "far more interested" in watching the primary movie over having no movies at all?Neither. I'm saying that when you go outside the self-selecting elite HT audience here (and it probably applies here as well), most people never look at bonus content of any type, and most of those who do are more likely to check out gag reels, deleted scenes, or making-of features rather than watch the movie again with commentary turned on. If we use your figure of 250K consumers with Profile 1 players, and apply my figure of 30% who actually watch bonus materials, and 20% of those actually watch commentary in addition to the other bonus content, you're down to 15K consumers. And this doesn't even factor in that most high-def titles don't even have PiP commentary, and (on Blu-ray) some percentage of those which do will still work on 1.0 players. Further, since those 15K consumers are not only early adopters (since they already own high-def media) but are also movie enthusiasts, they are likely to upgrade equipment more frequently than the general population, so some percentage will not take issue with upgrading to a newer player. Hence my point that a small number of enthusiasts here are making Profile 1.1 a much bigger issue than the marketplace is likely to.

The "article" you referenced is nothing more than a rehash of statements from a European HD DVD PRG spokesperson who is either woefully misinformed, purposely spewing false information, or both. I'll follow-up in that thread.OK, I thought there was a separate thread for discussion of that article, but since there isn't, I'll point out the major misinformation here:

The spokesperson claims that "If you've bought a first generation Blu-ray player you may be out of luck: chances are it won't play interactive features on new Blu-ray movie discs".This is simply false - Profile 1 players will play most interactive features; only those which depend on secondary audio/video won't be available or will have alternate presentation.
The spokesperson claims that BD-J isn't present in first generation player. BD-J is in all Blu-ray players.
The spokesperson claims that first generation Blu-ray players don't have persistent storage. All Blu-ray players have persistent storage for bookmarks and such; Profile 1.1 players also mandate local storage for downloaded content.
The spokesperson claims that Sunshine is the first Blu-ray from any Hollywood studio that includes a Picture-in-Picture function so you can see, rather than just hear, movie-makers comments. Picture-in-picture Blu-ray titles which work on all Blu-ray players have been released by multiple studios, including The Descent and Crank by Lionsgate and the upcoming Terminator 3 from Warner.
The spokesperson said "So consumers will buy a title and find it does not work." The movie will work, just features requiring secondary audio/video may be offered with alternate presentation or not be offered.
The spokesperson said "In fact, Internet connectivity won't be declared mandatory until the next specification, Profile 2.0, aka BD-Live."(Profile 2.0 isn't the next specification, it's a profile of the existing specification. There are no plans to make BD Live mandatory, network connectivity remains optional.

Neither. I'm saying that when you go outside the self-selecting elite HT audience here (and it probably applies here as well), most people never look at bonus content of any type, and most of those who do are more likely to check out gag reels, deleted scenes, or making-of features rather than watch the movie again with commentary turned on. If we use your figure of 250K consumers with Profile 1 players, and apply my figure of 30% who actually watch bonus materials, and 20% of those actually watch commentary in addition to the other bonus content, you're down to 15K consumers. And this doesn't even factor in that most high-def titles don't even have PiP commentary, and (on Blu-ray) some percentage of those which do will still work on 1.0 players. Further, since those 15K consumers are not only early adopters (since they already own high-def media) but are also movie enthusiasts, they are likely to upgrade equipment more frequently than the general population, so some percentage will not take issue with upgrading to a newer player. Hence my point that a small number of enthusiasts here are making Profile 1.1 a much bigger issue than the marketplace is likely to.


How can you make claims of something that a bd player has not yet done.

I tell you that I have my hddvd player connected to the net and downloaded extras on Transformers. I was skeptical at first, but I think it is pretty cool. I think the studios think so as well. They see more revenue this way in the future.

The point is if somone doesn't have it they will never know what it is.

[...]
I tell you that I have my hddvd player connected to the net and downloaded extras on Transformers. I was skeptical at first, but I think it is pretty cool. I think the studios think so as well. They see more revune this way in the future.[...]

Wasn't there an opportunity to donwload/purchase a ringtone right from an HD-DVD menu recently (maybe 300?, yes I'm the one person who hasn't seen this movie yet)?

That's a pretty interesting revenue stream opportunity...

Hence my point that a small number of enthusiasts here are making Profile 1.1 a much bigger issue than the marketplace is likely to.

If it weren't a big issue for the "marketplace," why is there even a 1.1 profile at all?

Wasn't there an opportunity to donwload/purchase a ringtone right from an HD-DVD menu recently (maybe 300?, yes I'm the one person who hasn't seen this movie yet)?

That's a pretty interesting revenue stream opportunity...

not that i've ever, nor will i ever, pay for and download a ringtone, it apparently is a very big and lucrative business!:eek:

OK, I thought there was a separate thread for discussion of that article, but since there isn't, I'll point out the major misinformation here:

The spokesperson claims that "If you've bought a first generation Blu-ray player you may be out of luck: chances are it won't play interactive features on new Blu-ray movie discs".This is simply false - Profile 1 players will play most interactive features; only those which depend on secondary audio/video won't be available or will have alternate presentation.
...

is interactive defined by pip? i thought interactive also related to networked features?

The spokesperson claims that first generation Blu-ray players don't have persistent storage. All Blu-ray players have persistent storage for bookmarks and such; Profile 1.1 players also mandate local storage for downloaded content.[/LIST]
Maybe he got his answer from our very own Sony insider: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=9919531&postcount=2528



Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Paidgeek, I believe you are incorrect. There are two types of non-volatile memory ("local storage") defined in the Blu-ray spec - the Application Data Area (known as "Persistent Storage" in MHP) for preferences, bookmarks, and such, and the Binding Unit Data Area for storage of A/V clips. All Blu-ray players must support the Application Data Area, albeit not a huge amount. All BD-Video 1.1 and BD-Live players must also support the Binding Unit Data Area (256MB for BD-Video and 1GB for BD-Live).

- Talk

Talk,

Strictly speaking, you are correct, but since the question was with regard to version 1.0 players and only 64KB is required, I rounded to zero....




:p.

Neither. I'm saying that when you go outside the self-selecting elite HT audience here (and it probably applies here as well), most people never look at bonus content of any type, and most of those who do are more likely to check out gag reels, deleted scenes, or making-of features rather than watch the movie again with commentary turned on. If we use your figure of 250K consumers with Profile 1 players, and apply my figure of 30% who actually watch bonus materials, and 20% of those actually watch commentary in addition to the other bonus content, you're down to 15K consumers. And this doesn't even factor in that most high-def titles don't even have PiP commentary, and (on Blu-ray) some percentage of those which do will still work on 1.0 players. Further, since those 15K consumers are not only early adopters (since they already own high-def media) but are also movie enthusiasts, they are likely to upgrade equipment more frequently than the general population, so some percentage will not take issue with upgrading to a newer player. Hence my point that a small number of enthusiasts here are making Profile 1.1 a much bigger issue than the marketplace is likely to.

the problem here is that on one hand it is often touted that bd is better b/c it can do all this b/c it has the coveted bandwidth, the extra space, etc.

on the other hand, whend defending profiles, you say it isn't important to anyone...

Back in Jan. of this year I was talking to a Toshiba rep about the future of HD DVD. he told me something that Toshiba and WB are working on in regard to Web Enable (IF)

You will be watching a movie (that has the "feature") and you see a poster on a wall or like the jacket that the actor is wearing . . .

You pause the movie and an Arrow icon appears. You move the icon to the item that has caught your eye. If the Arrow turns into a Hand - then you can buy that item. Just press OK and it goes into your Persistent Storage to be dealt with. You can continue with the purchase via CC or just delete the item.

He said it will be clothing, furniture, wall hangings, etc. The studio(s) have agreements with the retailers who will provide the merchandise.

Ask anyone in China what happened after John Woo's "The Killer" premiered. Within weeks, thousands of people had on the raincoat and the dark glasses.

Neither. I'm saying that when you go outside the self-selecting elite HT audience here (and it probably applies here as well), most people never look at bonus content of any type, and most of those who do are more likely to check out gag reels, deleted scenes, or making-of features rather than watch the movie again with commentary turned on. If we use your figure of 250K consumers with Profile 1 players, and apply my figure of 30% who actually watch bonus materials, and 20% of those actually watch commentary in addition to the other bonus content, you're down to 15K consumers. And this doesn't even factor in that most high-def titles don't even have PiP commentary, and (on Blu-ray) some percentage of those which do will still work on 1.0 players. Further, since those 15K consumers are not only early adopters (since they already own high-def media) but are also movie enthusiasts, they are likely to upgrade equipment more frequently than the general population, so some percentage will not take issue with upgrading to a newer player. Hence my point that a small number of enthusiasts here are making Profile 1.1 a much bigger issue than the marketplace is likely to.My question was directed at the generalizations you threw out in your post ("most people are far more interested") and now these percentages you just posted.

I am interested where you got these numbers. Do you have any backup for - "30% who actually watch bonus materials" and - "20% of those actually watch commentary in addition to the other bonus content".

Backup, as in "Universal has said that 40 percent of consumers who bought the Heroes HD-DVD disc signed up for an online account". (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/26/1032734268554.html)

You say 15K/250K = 6% really care, and many of those will just shrug their shoulders and buy a new player.

For someone who has been touting the greater flexibility and functionality of BD-J over HDi, you certainly are quick to dismiss 94% of the early adopter movie enthusiasts as "not caring" about cool new features.

Amir, I saw Shrek III this evening on my XA2 fw 2.7, breathtaking transfer! :)

I believe the upgraded VC-1 used on this movie to be your child... bravo.

I understand you are no longer with that department but care to comment on the differences / upgrades that took place ?

Am also told an entirely "new" VC-1 is in the pipes for Q1, 2008, is this true? Any comments?

Gianmarco

Thank you so much for the kind words. I know the team very much appreciates it.

Here is some info I just post on it: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=12218914&postcount=2181

As to what comes next year, I really can't say other than the fact that we are constantly increasing the "artificial intelligence" (sorry for use of the cliché :) ) in the encoder as to improve quality and reduce the need for manual tuning....

Back in Jan. of this year I was talking to a Toshiba rep about the future of HD DVD. he told me something that Toshiba and WB are working on in regard to Web Enable (IF)

You will be watching a movie (that has the "feature") and you see a poster on a wall or like the jacket that the actor is wearing . . .

You pause the movie and an Arrow icon appears. You move the icon to the item that has caught your eye. If the Arrow turns into a Hand - then you can buy that item. Just press OK and it goes into your Persistent Storage to be dealt with. You can continue with the purchase via CC or just delete the item.

He said it will be clothing, furniture, wall hangings, etc. The studio(s) have agreements with the retailers who will provide the merchandise.

Ask anyone in China what happened after John Woo's "The Killer" premiered. Within weeks, thousands of people had on the raincoat and the dark glasses.

Bingo. That is the point. HDDVD has it already to go and the bd group is so far away. Man I wish we could bust this news out on major networks.

Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
A lowest common denominator approach would mean the studios wouldn't offer these features. Clearly they will be offering them. Promotion of the features is a short-term issue; it's likely that by the end of this year a majority of the installed Blu-ray base will have Bonus View capability while the content which requires it will only start to be appearing. By the time Bonus View content is routinely appearing on new discs I'd estimate 90% of the installed base will be capable of supporting it and the studios will be less measured in their promotion. Yes, it's unfortunate that some segment of the installed base won't have access to a subset of bonus features in the exact same manner that the rest of the installed base will have access. We clearly disagree on the magnitude of the issue, however, and since we are basically rehashing old territory, I've said most of what I plan to.


snip..........
What I'm taking from this paragraph is that the PS3 will have Bonus View and BD Live capability, as it is my understanding that the PS3 constitutes a significantly large percentage of the Blu-ray players sold.
snip.........


Talk, are you saying that the PS3 will receive a software upgrade to Bonus View (1.1)?

Or do you mean that Bonus View content won't routinely be appearing on Blu-Ray discs for some extended period of time at which point there will have been great change in the BD player installed base, and 90% of players at that future point will support Bonus View (1.1)?

Talk, are you saying that the PS3 will receive a software upgrade to Bonus View (1.1)?As Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes would say, "I know nothing!"

Wow.. can i just say.. it's christmas time... i have a stack of disposable income and there is nothing exciting to buy on HD-DVD or Bluray discs! What is going on here??
I was reading projected annual release figures from studios earlier this year which suggested many titles were going to be released towards the end of this year.
I'm standing here.. my wallet is open... where did the movie studios go?

There is a logo, but just putting the logo on the content doesn't provide details as to which features may require Bonus View (or BD Live) support and which don't.

A lowest common denominator approach would mean the studios wouldn't offer these features. Clearly they will be offering them. Promotion of the features is a short-term issue; it's likely that by the end of this year a majority of the installed Blu-ray base will have Bonus View capability while the content which requires it will only start to be appearing. By the time Bonus View content is routinely appearing on new discs I'd estimate 90% of the installed base will be capable of supporting it and the studios will be less measured in their promotion. Yes, it's unfortunate that some segment of the installed base won't have access to a subset of bonus features in the exact same manner that the rest of the installed base will have access. We clearly disagree on the magnitude of the issue, however, and since we are basically rehashing old territory, I've said most of what I plan to.

My point is that the studio is having to make a decision to downplay a much vaunted next-gen capability because of the LCD player in the market. Would you deny that the studios would rather be featuring their next-gen capabilities prominently?

As regard your percentages, you've attempted to relegate the impact away before (see my "explain away" comment earlier in the quotes of my deleted thread).

I believe the 90% you discuss is misleading. While that may the number of players installed capable of BV, that is made up of PS3's by something like a ~10:1 ratio (assuming ~3mil PS3's and 300K BR decks).

That also is a >10X lead of installed players over HD-DVD, yet the disc sales ratio is ~2:1. So unless the attach ratio for standalone decks is HORRENDOUS, the more likely scenario is that standalone decks have a similar attach rate as HD DVD decks (which are estimated to number a little less more than BR standalones).

Thus it's more likely that something like HALF of the machines responsible for disc sales are 1.0 decks. And with the dearth of 1.1 deck announcements thus far, and the better pricing of the older 1.0 models, it's likely that the majority of decks thru this holiday season will be non-1.1 or -Live capable.

Thus with a Live title already on-deck for early '08 (according to you), which implies 1.1 features even earlier, I think it's entirely likely that the BDA is facing half or more of the folks buying discs realizing they have players that won't play the latest and greatest feature content.

The abysmal attach rates that are likely the PS3 seem to skew these numbers out of favor for the BDA, Talk.

The evidence suggests most consumers are far more interested in watching the primary movie (and most-to-all of the bonus content) for Pirates, Spiderman, Cars, Ratatouille, and a few hundred other Blu-ray exclusive titles than they are missing out altogether on Fox, Disney, Sony, and MGM content because at some point there will be a few picture-in-picture features which they may not have access to. Of course, they can also get a Panasonic DMP-BD30 and not risk missing out on secondary video, either.

May I ask WHAT evidence? It's not what the studios seem to have been saying. Nor what the BDA has been planning for. And with almost ZERO such content available on BD discs, how is this assessment being made?

If based on DVD, then why the push to expand the capability for HDM?

As Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes would say, "I know nothing!"

Ahh that brings back memories.......

Hogan's Heroes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPk5mCYKCtU

I See Nothing !!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dV2ECMd66M

...

If any Blu-ray CE manufacturers or studios are reading these comments, please don't underestimate the impact that confusing the buying public will have on future sales and also the impact of the optional features and multiple profiles and how they are implemented on all the players sold so far will have on customer satisfaction.

...



Yes. This has been the same message I have been trying to get across... unfortunately it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.


Good example matrix, BTW.

Neither. I'm saying that when you go outside the self-selecting elite HT audience here (and it probably applies here as well), most people never look at bonus content of any type, and most of those who do are more likely to check out gag reels, deleted scenes, or making-of features rather than watch the movie again with commentary turned on. If we use your figure of 250K consumers with Profile 1 players, and apply my figure of 30% who actually watch bonus materials, and 20% of those actually watch commentary in addition to the other bonus content, you're down to 15K consumers. And this doesn't even factor in that most high-def titles don't even have PiP commentary, and (on Blu-ray) some percentage of those which do will still work on 1.0 players. Further, since those 15K consumers are not only early adopters (since they already own high-def media) but are also movie enthusiasts, they are likely to upgrade equipment more frequently than the general population, so some percentage will not take issue with upgrading to a newer player. Hence my point that a small number of enthusiasts here are making Profile 1.1 a much bigger issue than the marketplace is likely to.


While I'm not sure your numbers are even CLOSE to correct (for example, of the 8 people I know with a HD DVD player, at least 6 of them have opted to check out the extra features of their new players/discs. I don't know about the other 2.), it only take a few to make a stink and get written up in the magazines.

Don't underestimate the idea that the rest of the population will ecome upset once they realize the truth, even if they never planned on using said features. Human beings are funny that way... especially with $1000 toys.

OK, I thought there was a separate thread for discussion of that article, but since there isn't, I'll point out the major misinformation here:

The spokesperson claims that "If you've bought a first generation Blu-ray player you may be out of luck: chances are it won't play interactive features on new Blu-ray movie discs".This is simply false - Profile 1 players will play most interactive features; only those which depend on secondary audio/video won't be available or will have alternate presentation.

Change the wording to "won't play all interactive features", and it's not a much better scenario. And I might add that your qulaification of "most" is not likely to hold as new discs come out.

The spokesperson claims that BD-J isn't present in first generation player. BD-J is in all Blu-ray players.

Yeah, I'm amazed how many have gotten this wrong.

The spokesperson claims that first generation Blu-ray players don't have persistent storage. All Blu-ray players have persistent storage for bookmarks and such; Profile 1.1 players also mandate local storage for downloaded content.

Technically wrong, yes. But to the point that the player doesn't have what it needs to become a 1.1 box, it's "right enough" from the consumer's eyes.


The spokesperson claims that Sunshine is the first Blu-ray from any Hollywood studio that includes a Picture-in-Picture function so you can see, rather than just hear, movie-makers comments. Picture-in-picture Blu-ray titles which work on all Blu-ray players have been released by multiple studios, including The Descent and Crank by Lionsgate and the upcoming Terminator 3 from Warner.

Please. No more of this, OK? My machine is not capable of time-travel just because it has a rewind button.

Fact is that a 1.1 profile exists, there will be media that requires it soon (perhaps Sunshine), and the older decks WON'T play it as PiP. Previous slight-of-hand will not alleviate this.

The spokesperson said "So consumers will buy a title and find it does not work." The movie will work, just features requiring secondary audio/video may be offered with alternate presentation or not be offered.

Seriously Talk, look at this from a consimer viewpoint. The power windows don't work on the brand-new car. Yes, it drives, but that's not the point.

The spokesperson said "In fact, Internet connectivity won't be declared mandatory until the next specification, Profile 2.0, aka BD-Live."(Profile 2.0 isn't the next specification, it's a profile of the existing specification. There are no plans to make BD Live mandatory, network connectivity remains optional.


Quite frankly, your scenario may in fact be worse.

is interactive defined by pip? i thought interactive also related to networked features?

Interactivity could also be code in BD-J or HDi. And I agree with that definition as well. But to narrowly say that JUST because a player can play Liar's Dice on Pirates, means that it's not lacking the ability to display other interactive content (such as true PiP, network content, etc..) is misleading.

I'll not that this seems to be the BDA's definition as well as mine: the BD demo disc currently plying is stores has a section with a title of "Interactivity" that explicitly shows PiP and down-loadable content as well as BD-J code running.

Ans I seriously question "Most"... especially in the future.

As Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes would say, "I know nothing!"

Would Col. Clink happen to know the attach rates of standalone BD decks vs, PS3's?

I suspect that 3+ million PS's may account for only ~half the discs sold compared to >300K BD decks...

BDA say good bye to disney

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
The spokesperson said "In fact, Internet connectivity won't be declared mandatory until the next specification, Profile 2.0, aka BD-Live."(Profile 2.0 isn't the next specification, it's a profile of the existing specification. There are no plans to make BD Live mandatory, network connectivity remains optional.

BDA say good bye to disney

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
The spokesperson said "In fact, Internet connectivity won't be declared mandatory until the next specification, Profile 2.0, aka BD-Live."(Profile 2.0 isn't the next specification, it's a profile of the existing specification. There are no plans to make BD Live mandatory, network connectivity remains optional.

I've always thought this was a strange idea. It will provide endless confusion to consumers and endless pain to retailers.

It's commonplace for features to be modified or dropped prior to release of a disk, whether on DVD, HD DVD, or Blu-ray. Sometimes the feature doesn't get done in time, sometimes there's not enough disk capacity or bandwidth, sometimes there are compatibility issues. Given the relative lack of maturity of interactivity for both Blu-ray and HD DVD dropped features are especially common.

Except some of the bonus features (non-interactive stuff like documentaries, commentary tracks or trailers) have already been produced from when these movies were released on DVD and they don't take that much space since they're encoded at 480i. Seriously, what excuse does Fox have for not including a single bonus feature besides a trailer for The Usual Suspects, Rocky or Robocop BD's from their SE DVD counterparts but including every single bonus feature from The Fly 2-disc SE on the just-released BD? The only reasonable answer is that the first three are on BD25 and the latter on BD50, which eliminates the whole 'Blu-ray is bigger and thus better' argument (especially with "Usual Suspects" getting a less-than-perfect MPEG2 transfer). Heck, even the excellent Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven BD50 releases are missing many of the excellent documentaries and features from the DVD Box Sets. :(

As a bonus feature whore (once a movie is watched and watched again you really need a commentary or documentary to pull you back in again and again) I can't quite grasp how since inception most HD-DVD's have managed to retain/add to the bonus features from their DVD counterparts (or in King Kong's case offer a decent alternative in the form of U-Control) but on many (most?) catalogue BD releases bonus features are deemed toxic. If an HD-DVD doesn't have bonus features usually is because there were none for the DVD (like in Darkman or The Getaway remake). The double-dip mentality of the studios could be playing a role in some BDA members' decision-making which is dumb. BD isn't firmly-established enough to alienate potential customers like me that want the HTM experience but also don't want to lose the bonus content that puts the movie experience in context (and in my case adds replayability to the purchase).

For the record...it is HD DVD, not HD-DVD.

He might be reacting to the new Hollywood Video flyer which called the format HD-DVD . ;)

is interactive defined by pip? i thought interactive also related to networked features?Many here have absolutely implied that PiP defines interactive. My point is that not only does PiP not define interactive, but it's in fact a small slice of what interactivity has and will deliver. PiP is probably at its best on a title like 300, where it can show something directly relevant to what's in the primary video on an ongoing basis. The number of movies for which full-on PiP makes sense, however, is pretty limited.

For generic director commentary it's a mixed bag; how often is the visual of a bunch of folk sitting around a table talking more compelling than what's on-screen? Probably not that often, and it's intrusive with regards to the primary video. A more nuanced approach is to only display PiP where a visual of what the commentary is discussing is informative; at other times you'd stick to audio, bring up still images, or use a telestrator approach. (Incidentally, this approach to commentary makes the detail of whether the studio uses secondary video or "fake" PiP virtually invisible to the consumer, since you're only dual encoding those brief portions where PiP video is required, and seamless branching can easily allow the viewer to pop in and out of commentary without breaking the flow of the movie).

So we've looked at director commentary as a clear use for PiP (some of which secondary video is clearly important, much of which it isn't). Beyond that type of content we've seen far less use for it. Other bonus content we've seen simply doesn't require secondary video. Anything full-frame (making of, deleted scenes, gag reel, etc.). On-screen graphics (damage meter or GPS map). Games. Bookmarking. Database of scenes and actors. Playlists. Alternate director cuts.

Bottom line: Bonus features which require secondary video (and can't be authored identically with dual encoding) makes up a small percentage of the full catalog of bonus content which has been offered to-date on any format. The impact of secondary video not being present in all BD players is being overstated.

I honestly do not understand the fixation on making networking support mandatory. After all, presumably you aren't requiring consumers to actually connect their player to a network?

Titles will have to be authored to deal with the absence of the network (or temporary downtime for a server) on both formats. Giving a consumer who has no intention of connecting their player to a network the choice of players without the hardware doesn't complicate things one bit.

May I ask WHAT evidence?Look around. Even here, in a forum dedicated to HT enthusiasts, the phrase "just give me the damn movie, I don't care about the other stuff" is repeatedly frequently. Do you not think that's even more the case among the general population? Does your wife enjoy watching the bonus content? Mine likes the gag reel, might tolerate a few deleted scenes if she really liked the movie, and hasn't a shred of interest in the rest.
It's not what the studios seem to have been saying. Nor what the BDA has been planning for.Of course, and I'll be thrilled when consumers value the stuff which high-def media is capable of delivering. But today they mostly don't; whether it's because "the stuff" isn't compelling enough, because it hasn't been marketed well enough, or because most high-def consumers today tend to be older and wealthier than the demographic which was raised on IM and SMS remains to be seen, but the fact remains that every survey I'v seen shows that the two overwhelmingly most important criteria for consumers are a)the content (i.e. story line, acting, etc.) and b)the A/V presentation. Making of, deleted scenes, ordering stuff from the movie, creating custom playlists, etc. is way, way, way down the chart and doesn't appear to be driving consumer purchase decisions today in any meaningful way.
And with almost ZERO such content available on BD discs, how is this assessment being made?What are you defining as "zero such content"? I've seen no indication that BD titles have fewer bonus features than do HD DVD when you're looking at the full catalog of bonus content (making of, deleted scenes, commentary, games, etc.). Yes, fewer BD titles have PiP than do HD DVD titles, but as I've posted previously that's but one of many features. Looking at the purely interactive stuff I'd call the two pretty close; a few HD titles have networked features, but more BD titles have games. Both formats have titles with bookmarking, both have pop-up trivia, only BD has database-driven scene access and multiple directors cuts, etc. I'd say it's pretty even overall, and certainly by no stretch can be characterized as "almost ZERO".

Many here have absolutely implied that PiP defines interactive. My point is that not only does PiP not define interactive, but it's in fact a small slice of what interactivity has and will deliver. PiP is probably at its best on a title like 300, where it can show something directly relevant to what's in the primary video on an ongoing basis. The number of movies for which full-on PiP makes sense, however, is pretty limited.

For generic director commentary it's a mixed bag; how often is the visual of a bunch of folk sitting around a table talking more compelling than what's on-screen? Probably not that often, and it's intrusive with regards to the primary video. A more nuanced approach is to only display PiP where a visual of what the commentary is discussing is informative; at other times you'd stick to audio, bring up still images, or use a telestrator approach. (Incidentally, this approach to commentary makes the detail of whether the studio uses secondary video or "fake" PiP virtually invisible to the consumer, since you're only dual encoding those brief portions where PiP video is required, and seamless branching can easily allow the viewer to pop in and out of commentary without breaking the flow of the movie).

So we've looked at director commentary as a clear use for PiP (some of which secondary video is clearly important, much of which it isn't). Beyond that type of content we've seen far less use for it. Other bonus content we've seen simply doesn't require secondary video. Anything full-frame (making of, deleted scenes, gag reel, etc.). On-screen graphics (damage meter or GPS map). Games. Bookmarking. Database of scenes and actors. Playlists. Alternate director cuts.

Bottom line: Bonus features which require secondary video (and can't be authored identically with dual encoding) makes up a small percentage of the full catalog of bonus content which has been offered to-date on any format. The impact of secondary video not being present in all BD players is being overstated.


1) The issue is that without a consistent base of hardware supporting it, the issue of deciding use it and/or prominently promote it becomes problematic. (Ignoring the arbitrary quantity conclusions you've drawn)

2) This ignores the idea that what's possible in the future for that format. Six months ago the bar for secondary video content was significantly lower. Then 300 came out. Who knows what uses for the future render your current findings useless. (This is a similar argument as used for BD-J, btw)

I can't quite grasp how since inception most HD-DVD's have managed to retain/add to the bonus features from their DVD counterparts (or in King Kong's case offer a decent alternative in the form of U-Control) but on many (most?) catalogue BD releases bonus features are deemed toxic.I suspect if what you perceive is true that it's primarily a function of studio strategy. You can certainly characterize each studio as having particular tendencies with regards to bonus content (i.e. MGM has typically provided very little, while Disney provides a lot). You may be seeing a case where Universal tends toward more bonus content and SPE tends toward less, so you're generalizing to the format as a whole. There's certainly nothing inherent to the format which reasonably limits the ability of the studio to put more bonus content on most discs than 99% of us would ever care to watch.

2) This ignores the idea that what's possible in the future for that format. Six months ago the bar for secondary video content was significantly lower. Then 300 came out. Who knows what uses for the future render your current findings useless.As I said, for today there are only a small number of titles which lend themselves to this sort of presentation (and the relative sales numbers for 300 don't provide any evidence that consumers actually bought more of that title due to the secondary video feature). As for the future, the further ahead we look the less of an issue the installed base of 1.0 players becomes. If sales numbers continue to ramp a year from now we could expect there to be a few million US households who watch Blu-ray movies, of which perhaps 100-200K would not have 1.1 support (assuming PS3's get updated). A year after that it might be ten million households. The few percent of the installed base which doesn't have 1.1 support (ignoring the fact that only a percentage of that installed base will actually care about 1.1 support) aren't going to prevent studios from adequately marketing advanced features - you'll just see an asterisk next to those which won't work on 1.0 with some disclaimer text down below.

Look around. Even here, in a forum dedicated to HT enthusiasts, the phrase "just give me the damn movie, I don't care about the other stuff" is repeatedly frequently.
Do you not think that's even more the case among the general population? Does your wife enjoy watching the bonus content? Mine likes the gag reel, might tolerate a few deleted scenes if she really liked the movie, and hasn't a shred of interest in the rest.
Of course, and I'll be thrilled when consumers value the stuff which high-def media is capable of delivering. But today they mostly don't; whether it's because "the stuff" isn't compelling enough, because it hasn't been marketed well enough, or because most high-def consumers today tend to be older and wealthier than the demographic which was raised on IM and SMS remains to be seen, but the fact remains that every survey I'v seen shows that the two overwhelmingly most important criteria for consumers are a)the content (i.e. story line, acting, etc.) and b)the A/V presentation. Making of, deleted scenes, ordering stuff from the movie, creating custom playlists, etc. is way, way, way down the chart and doesn't appear to be driving consumer purchase decisions today in any meaningful way.


Then why do special editions with extra content sell better?

Why are CE's on both sides deciding to spend significant resources to add next-gen such capabilities to their platforms?
Why are studios spending large amounts of cash to add such content to discs?

Just about everybody I know with a HDM platform of either flavor has checked out the additional content on the discs they've gotten. Threads have been started here focused almost entirely on extra content on new releases.

What are you defining as "zero such content"? I've seen no indication that BD titles have fewer bonus features than do HD DVD when you're looking at the full catalog of bonus content (making of, deleted scenes, commentary, games, etc.). Yes, fewer BD titles have PiP than do HD DVD titles, but as I've posted previously that's but one of many features. Looking at the purely interactive stuff I'd call the two pretty close; a few HD titles have networked features, but more BD titles have games. Both formats have titles with bookmarking, both have pop-up trivia, only BD has database-driven scene access and multiple directors cuts, etc. I'd say it's pretty even overall, and certainly by no stretch can be characterized as "almost ZERO".


There's practically zero BD 1.1 or better capable content available. There are a few titles that fake PiP, but that's it.

Or do you have some hard data that says the number of people that that have watched extras on BD is significantly less than SD DVD, where dual-disc extra content editions sell better than their counterparts?

I suspect if what you perceive is true that it's primarily a function of studio strategy. You can certainly characterize each studio as having particular tendencies with regards to bonus content (i.e. MGM has typically provided very little, while Disney provides a lot). You may be seeing a case where Universal tends toward more bonus content and SPE tends toward less, so you're generalizing to the format as a whole. There's certainly nothing inherent to the format which reasonably limits the ability of the studio to put more bonus content on most discs than 99% of us would ever care to watch.

Very good,

This reasoning also applies to selection of audio tracks perfectly. :rolleyes:

As I said, for today there are only a small number of titles which lend themselves to this sort of presentation (and the relative sales numbers for 300 don't provide any evidence that consumers actually bought more of that title due to the secondary video feature). As for the future, the further ahead we look the less of an issue the installed base of 1.0 players becomes. If sales numbers continue to ramp a year from now we could expect there to be a few million US households who watch Blu-ray movies, of which perhaps 100-200K would not have 1.1 support (assuming PS3's get updated). A year after that it might be ten million households. The few percent of the installed base which doesn't have 1.1 support (ignoring the fact that only a percentage of that installed base will actually care about 1.1 support) aren't going to prevent studios from adequately marketing advanced features - you'll just see an asterisk next to those which won't work on 1.0 with some disclaimer text down below.


Talk. Dont' be so narrow in imagining what can be done. You don't do this for BD-J do you?

Green screen for 300, sure. Director commentary with behind the scenes views as the live action happens. Amimatics previews matching live footage. Alternate stunt angles over live footage. Special FX work. Computer modeling work. Actor commentary. Location scouting. Computer mockups. Minatures and model creation. Voiceover footage. Etc...

I just watched the documentary "Star Wars: Empire of Dreams". It was 2-1/2 hours of content, a significant percentage of which had the documentary content superimposed over the actual movie footage. If anything, I'd say a majority of such content is MORE compelling when you can see the actual movie for context of what is being talked about.

And as I've discussed previously, I believe you numbers for installed decks don't paint the picture you want it to. The majority of those "few million" players you refer to are PS3's, yet the few hundred thousand standalone decks could very well account for close to half the movie disc attachments.

Look around. Even here, in a forum dedicated to HT enthusiasts, the phrase "just give me the damn movie, I don't care about the other stuff" is repeatedly frequently. Do you not think that's even more the case among the general population? Does your wife enjoy watching the bonus content? Mine likes the gag reel, might tolerate a few deleted scenes if she really liked the movie, and hasn't a shred of interest in the rest.


In all fairness it seems the studios have spent years researching the benefits of extras and have pretty much unanimously concluded that they must be benefitial from a sales perspective.

Look at Disney, they released both Pirates movies on 2 disc blu-ray sets. I'm looking at the packaing for Pirates 2 and it advertises "Over 7 hours of bonus features ona a 2 disc-set". "Games & Activities", "Movie Showcase", "Backstage", "Captain Jack", "Meet Davy Jones", "Bloopers of the Caribbean" and "Much, Much More".

What about Spiderman 3 on a 2 disc BD set? What about all these extra features that Warner Brothers puts on their discs?

I'm certainly not here to argue with anyone, but I find it hard to believe that an industry insider would post about how the "general population" apparently doesn't care for movie extras when billion dollar studios clearly have found that the general population does indeed care about extras. Are you implying that Disney and Sony wasted their time and money by producing feature rich 2 disc sets?

Again, not trying to be argumentative, but your statements simply appear to indicate the exact opposite of what the studios believe.

I suspect if what you perceive is true that it's primarily a function of studio strategy. You can certainly characterize each studio as having particular tendencies with regards to bonus content (i.e. MGM has typically provided very little, while Disney provides a lot). You may be seeing a case where Universal tends toward more bonus content and SPE tends toward less, so you're generalizing to the format as a whole. There's certainly nothing inherent to the format which reasonably limits the ability of the studio to put more bonus content on most discs than 99% of us would ever care to watch.

Why is it OK to assume that lack of bonus content is due to studio strategy, as opposed to lack of capable hardware to present it in a fashion similar to HD DVD, yet lack of lossless tracks on HD DVD MUST be due to lack of plaform capability, as opposed to studio strategy?

Why is it OK to assume that lack of bonus content is due to studio strategy, as opposed to lack of capable hardware to present it in a fashion similar to HD DVD, yet lack of lossless tracks on HD DVD MUST be due to lack of plaform capability, as opposed to studio strategy?

Both seem true to me: lack on interactivity due to lack of capability, and lack of lossless audio for the same reason.

If I had to chose, I'd take lack of interactivity in a heartbeat.

Both seem true to me: lack on interactivity due to lack of capability, and lack of lossless audio for the same reason.

If I had to chose, I'd take lack of interactivity in a heartbeat.

Intrestingly, the audio/video specs for a number of discs demonstrate that it wasn't due to lack of space/bandwidth, yet they STILL didn't have lossless. So it's not a foregone conclusion.

My point to Talk is that he doesn't get to argue such things both ways.

Intrestingly, the audio/video specs for a number of discs demonstrate that it wasn't due to lack of space/bandwidth, yet they STILL didn't have lossless. So it's not a foregone conclusion.


If it's not the correct thread to discuss about it, I apologize, but I'd like to point out that I recently compared the European and the American version of Serenity.

Amir told us that advances in compression made the European version look a bit better, but what I saw (using a 2K 3DLP 6000 lumens projector and a 4.5m wide screen) was the opposite: the European version has a lot of audio tracks, and they definitively take a toll on the video, which looks softer.

but what I saw (using a 2K 3DLP 6000 lumens projector and a 4.5m wide screen)

4.5m = 177 inches ?

Look around. Even here, in a forum dedicated to HT enthusiasts, the phrase "just give me the damn movie, I don't care about the other stuff" is repeatedly frequently.

Now it is, yes. And while some people genuinely feel this way, it's the cheerleaders who say it the loudest and the most frequently, after changing their story a few times.

Before either format came out, and even when HD DVD was out and the world was waiting for BD, those same cheerleaders were saying how BD will have more space and bandwidth for better PQ/AQ and extra content/interactivity/etc...

Then, when BD came out with the first Sammy and then the PS3, the battlecry became "I don't care about extras, unless they're in HD, then I'll care and want them, and BD will eventually have that!" because it was believed that 1.1 would mandate HD PiP.

And amongst all the confusion (which STILL persists today) about these profiles, it was revealed that 1.1 DIDN'T mandate HD PiP, and then the incessant droning became "I don't care about extras. Period."

I'm not saying you're claiming this, per se, but anyone claiming that this isn't the true progression of that "just give me the movie" excuse mantra, or anyone claiming that these very same people ALWAYS said "just give me the movie," is being very dishonest.

4.5m = 177 inches ?
Actually its 177.16 Inches, but yeah, this fella seems to have a pretty decent home theatre :eek:

Why is it OK to assume that lack of bonus content is due to studio strategy, as opposed to lack of capable hardware to present it in a fashion similar to HD DVD, yet lack of lossless tracks on HD DVD MUST be due to lack of plaform capability, as opposed to studio strategy?

The $100,000,000 question, right there.

Now it is, yes. And while some people genuinely feel this way, it's the cheerleaders who say it the loudest and the most frequently, after changing their story a few times.

Before either format came out, and even when HD DVD was out and the world was waiting for BD, those same cheerleaders were saying how BD will have more space and bandwidth for better PQ/AQ and extra content/interactivity/etc...

Then, when BD came out with the first Sammy and then the PS3, the battlecry became "I don't care about extras, unless they're in HD, then I'll care and want them, and BD will eventually have that!" because it was believed that 1.1 would mandate HD PiP.

And amongst all the confusion (which STILL persists today) about these profiles, it was revealed that 1.1 DIDN'T mandate HD PiP, and then the incessant droning became "I don't care about extras. Period."

I'm not saying you're claiming this, per se, but anyone claiming that this isn't the true progression of that "just give me the movie" excuse mantra, or anyone claiming that these very same people ALWAYS said "just give me the movie," is being very dishonest.

I am not a chearleader for either format but I say it. Just give me the damn movie. Except for maybe a couple of my Buffy collection I have never bother to watch the extras. I've always called them dumpware.

- Tom

I am not a chearleader for either format but I say it. Just give me the damn movie. Except for maybe a couple of my Buffy collection I have never bother to watch the extras. I've always called them dumpware.

- Tom
HD formats do give you "just the movie." But once you have watched it, and wonder where your $25 went :), you can watch it again with interactivity and get a completley new experience. It really has nothing to do with watching the movie itself. I must say, I never did this with DVDs until a couple of years ago and then find it kind of nice. HD formats take that to an entirely new level.

In some ways, DVDs and other interactivity efforts in the past have really given a bad name to this capability. The way to think about this new feature is that you have a PC with graphics/vidoe/audio and the content owner can create anything with that. It is a platfrom with a lot of capabilities which will not be exhausted for a while and cannot be judged in advance of applications for it....

I am not a chearleader for either format but I say it. Just give me the damn movie.

I agree with you. But the studios want to use interactivity to develop new market. Interactivity mainly target the demographic who watch movie in the theatre but rarely buy discs.

PQ/AQ will do nothing to those people. You must provide something they want but couldn't get in the theatre.

I should have watched the extra's on Transformers first. I never played with them because they came when I was older. Now that I understand the story I can rewatch the movie with a new perspective

HD formats do give you "just the movie." But once you have watched it, and wonder where your $25 went :), you can watch it again with interactivity and get a completley new experience. It really has nothing to do with watching the movie itself. I must say, I never did this with DVDs until a couple of years ago and then find it kind of nice. HD formats take that to an entirely new level.

In some ways, DVDs and other interactivity efforts in the past have really given a bad name to this capability. The way to think about this new feature is that you have a PC with graphics/vidoe/audio and the content owner can create anything with that. It is a platfrom with a lot of capabilities which will not be exhausted for a while and cannot be judged in advance of applications for it....
The question is whether the studios believe that. IF they do, it doesn't matter what the folks think. They can always ignore the features if they want. Disney believes in them so much that they burn disc space for them and Warner believes in them so much that they don't release BDs because they can't do them. What is your experience with the studios and "features"?

Just about everybody I know with a HDM platform of either flavor has checked out the additional content on the discs they've gotten. Threads have been started here focused almost entirely on extra content on new releases.Of course there are people here who routinely watch most or all of the bonus content and some of whom post about it. The fact there are some people who view it doesn't disprove my assertion that at this point the majority of viewers don't.
There's practically zero BD 1.1 or better capable content available.And here, I think, is where we're talking past each other. You seem to equate BD1.1 as being the only platform capable of supporting advanced content. That's simply not the case. Only a handful of HD DVD discs have been released whose features would require BD1.1 or higher. By my count we're talking about four US releases (Blood Diamond, 300, Evan Almighty, and Transformers) which have either a network-connected feature or have a PiP feature running the length of the movie where the secondary content is tied to the primary content througout. To my knowledge every other bonus feature released so far on HD DVD can be done on a standard 1.0 BD player.
There are a few titles that fake PiP, but that's it.I refuse to accept your "fake" vs "real" PiP argument; for most scenarios other than "300-style PiP" or an exceptionally long movie the "fake" PiP can provide an experience sufficiently equivalent to the "real" PiP that an average consumer would be unlikely to perceive a meaningful difference.
Director commentary with behind the scenes views as the live action happens. Amimatics previews matching live footage. Alternate stunt angles over live footage. Special FX work. Computer modeling work. Actor commentary. Location scouting. Computer mockups. Minatures and model creation. Voiceover footage.Almost every one of these use cases would only require relative short segments of PiP footage, and so can be implemented via dual encoding and seamless branching as easily as with secondary video while still providing the viewer the opportunity to move in and out of the PiP track between segments. Again, the average viewer will find the experience exactly as satisfactory as if the PiP is implemented via secondary video. The fact Warner is using this approach to deliver IME on Blu-ray certainly suggests it's a completely satisfactory solution.
Or do you have some hard data that says the number of people that that have watched extras on BD is significantly less than SD DVD, where dual-disc extra content editions sell better than their counterparts?To the contrary, given that virtually every BD consumer is an enthusiast I'm sure the bonus viewing rates are much higher than SD DVD.

Steve, it seems you continue to focus on the five HD DVD title releases which have content not easily replicable on Blu-ray rather than the 325 or so which are generally equivalent. Which do you think more people care about: the fact that there are five HD DVD titles with bonus features not supportable on BD 1.0 players, or the fact that HD DVD has 168 fewer titles with lossless audio than Blu-ray does (in spite of having mandatory TrueHD support)?

I think we've run this one into the ground. Here's my summary:

I'm all in favor of bonus features. The more the better. A large percentage of viewers have little interest in them, however, and rank their importance far below that of the movie content and the quality of the movie presentation.
It's unfortunate that all Blu-ray players don't have secondary video and network support.
The BDA and Blu-ray vendors should educate consumers however possible to the existence of features on some titles which may not be supported by all players.
The fact that BD 1.0 players don't support secondary video impacts a very narrow segment of bonus content and simply doesn't have a significant long-term impact on the studios' ability to deliver great releases.

I'm done.

The question is whether the studios believe that.
Oh they believe it. And they have other reasons to do so. They see this as a huge growth opporutnity. Majority of the people who see the movie will not buy it on disc. Unlike music, once people know the story, etc., they have little incentive to buy the movie again. So the studios constantly look for ways to make the disc different than the theatrical presentation. The potential here is huge. If my memory is right, studies they have done show that only 25% of the people buy the disc after seeing it in the theater. If they increase this to 50%, that will be an amazing upside to say nothing of the premium of HD media on top of DVD.

IF they do, it doesn't matter what the folks think. They can always ignore the features if they want. Disney believes in them so much that they burn disc space for them and Warner believes in them so much that they don't release BDs because they can't do them. What is your experience with the studios and "features"?
The studios we work with are more than believers. They will not consider releasing titles without them most of the time. We are constantly being pushed for new capabilities. That is the reason for such fast progress in just 18-20 months since launch.

Part of this has to do with "being cool." Digital distribution is cool, but doesn't make money. DVD makes money but isn't cool. The hope is that by using these features, HD DVD can be cool too. And which executive wouldn't want to have a cool new format in this day and age!

IF they do, it doesn't matter what the folks think.

They way I see it, it really doesn't matter what folks who collect or reguarly purchase DVD think. Because your base is belong to the studios anyway.:)

IMHO . . .

DS PIP = an upgrade from the "directors commentary" that are on many DVD's. Before we saw the movie and heard the director/talent discuss how they did the scene. Now we can see the director talking. Or see additional info like a comparision of an unprocessed shot to the final finished scene/shot

WEB ENABLE - IF/2.0/BD-Live - something brand new. Before we had to transfer the DVD to our PC so we could access the DVD-ROM features that were on the disc - PITA. And very limited use - even 8 years SI of DVD.

WE merges our three favorite pastimes; movies. the internet and shopping. It is literally unlimited as to how it can be used. I do know that the studios are looking at it as a real potential source of extra revenue for merchandising. For popular movies there are fan oriented websites that can be accessed. There is talk of seeing new trailers and downloading subtitles.

"Cool" is DEFINITELY in because if we solely depend on better PQ and AQ . . . then HDM = LD part 2

If it's not the correct thread to discuss about it, I apologize, but I'd like to point out that I recently compared the European and the American version of Serenity.

Amir told us that advances in compression made the European version look a bit better, but what I saw (using a 2K 3DLP 6000 lumens projector and a 4.5m wide screen) was the opposite: the European version has a lot of audio tracks, and they definitively take a toll on the video, which looks softer.

Regardless, there are a number of discs where the space/bitrate would have allowed for a lossless track, yet the studio opted to not put one. Yet many folks argue that the lack of a losless track MUST be a result of limits, not studio policy. Yet here Talk is arguing the opposite for BD extras.

The knife cuts both ways.

...

I think we've run this one into the ground. Here's my summary:

I'm all in favor of bonus features. The more the better. A large percentage of viewers have little interest in them, however, and rank their importance far below that of the movie content and the quality of the movie presentation.
It's unfortunate that all Blu-ray players don't have secondary video and network support.
The BDA and Blu-ray vendors should educate consumers however possible to the existence of features on some titles which may not be supported by all players.
The fact that BD 1.0 players don't support secondary video impacts a very narrow segment of bonus content and simply doesn't have a significant long-term impact on the studios' ability to deliver great releases.

I'm done.


Fair enough... and I appreciate your willingness to argue discuss this one with me.

In my summary I simply suggest the BDA can't have it both ways:

* Either studios are really pushing for next gen interactive capability support because they believe it's valuable enough to upsell to consumers willing to pay to have it OR nobody really watches it do there's no value proposition

* Either extra BR capacity allows for more/better content OR dual-encode PiP is for real and that extra capacity is largely negated.

* Studios are excited about next gen capability and are confident that the large installed base of PS3s will enable them to target consumers with it OR they may opt not even advertise it due to fractured user base capability.


As a consumer I tell you: this message is inconsistent. I had a BD player. I want another one, should there continue be compelling content on that format. Please give me something I can count on.

Thanks.

I refuse to accept your "fake" vs "real" PiP argument; for most scenarios other than "300-style PiP" or an exceptionally long movie the "fake" PiP can provide an experience sufficiently equivalent to the "real" PiP that an average consumer would be unlikely to perceive a meaningful difference.

This is what is really irritating.

When the "superior" format can't do something the "inferior" format has always been able to do, and then kludges around it to make it work, effectively taking away its storage and bandwidth advantage...it's suddenly OK because "an average consumer would be unlikely to perceive a meaningful difference."

But that same "average consumer" can easily detect the "meaningful" difference between PCM/TrueHD and DD+ 1.5 MB, and can easily detect the "meaningful" softness obviously brought about by bitrates falling below 25 Mbps at any point in time??

(well, when that kludge wasn't used...of course) ;)

Regardless, there are a number of discs where the space/bitrate would have allowed for a lossless track, yet the studio opted to not put one.Care to name the major recent HD DVD releases that would apply to? Remember we are talking about both capacity and bandwidth so if either one is exceeded with the addition of a lossless audio track than it couldn't have been added. Maybe I am just suspicious but when a major release like Transformers doesn't include a lossless audio track it looks to me like it was done because of the limitations of the HD format that was used.


Yet many folks argue that the lack of a losless track MUST be a result of limits, not studio policy.Can't studio policy though be caused by the limitations of a HD format? For instance I doubt that Sony didn't use PiP on their movies before Resident Evil: Extinction because they didn't consider it important. Just my opinion but it seems to me like both HD formats have limitations though some posters will deny the limitations of their preferred HD format.

Care to name the major recent HD DVD releases that would apply to? Remember we are talking about both capacity and bandwidth so if either one is exceeded with the addition of a lossless audio track than it couldn't have been added. Maybe I am just suspicious but when a major release like Transformers doesn't include a lossless audio track it looks to me like it was done because of the limitations of the HD format that was used.
Your Honor, the prosecution is asking the witness to speculate, and also trying to put words in his mouth.

Two recent very good examples would be Ocean's 13 (DD+ at 640kbps on both Blu-ray and HD DVD) and Shrek the Third (DD+ at 1.5Mbps on HD DVD).

Ocean's 13 has a runtime of 122 minutes, while Shrek the Third has a runtime of 92 minutes.

Hard to imagine that True HD couldn't have been used on either disc. Perhaps the audio folks just think what's on the disc is beyond good enough?

In the end, it's impossible know if any particular disc would sound better had True HD been used because we can't make that comparison unless it's re-released.

A few things are very clear in all of this.
1. The PS3 can no longer win this.
2. The folks already have a format that they like the video and audio on. It's called DVD.
3. If these formats can't offer something that is actually different, they will fail.

Care to name the major recent HD DVD releases that would apply to? Remember we are talking about both capacity and bandwidth so if either one is exceeded with the addition of a lossless audio track than it couldn't have been added. Maybe I am just suspicious but when a major release like Transformers doesn't include a lossless audio track it looks to me like it was done because of the limitations of the HD format that was used.

You are limiting the choices aren't you? How many recent BB's has HD DVD had to release?

Of the 325 HD DVD releases . . how many are 120 minutes and under yet have no Lossless audio? Answer - plenty. We know it will fit - no problem - yet no lossless audio.


Can't studio policy though be caused by the limitations of a HD format? For instance I doubt that Sony didn't use PiP on their movies before Resident Evil: Extinction because they didn't consider it important. Just my opinion but it seems to me like both HD formats have limitations though some posters will deny the limitations of their preferred HD format.

So the original 7/31/07 deadline (changed to 10/31/07) was nothing? Why have a deadline in the first place? Why not talk to SIGMA and Broadcom. Ask them when their Rev. C and Rev B SoC's were finally put into production. It had nothing to do with "important" and everything to do with "they couldn't make it work!"

You are limiting the choices aren't you?Yes, but recent big name movies tend to get much better treatment (such as Ratatouille (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1048/ratatouille.html) and Transformers (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html)) when compared to older or less popular movies. As such are you really going to fault me for asking for some major recent movie examples or does it just so happen that the "number of discs" that scaesare knows of doesn't include any? In fact just curious but what are the "number of discs" he knows of, how does he know they could have included a lossless audio track, and how did he figure out the peak AV bit rate that was used in those movies?


Of the 325 HD DVD releases . . how many are 120 minutes and under yet have no Lossless audio? Answer - plenty. We know it will fit - no problem - yet no lossless audio.Just curious but exactly how many of those titles do you know of that could have included a lossless audio track with the video encoding that was used?


So the original 7/31/07 deadline (changed to 10/31/07) was nothing? Why have a deadline in the first place?First off you completely misunderstood what I said since obviously Sony waiting to use PiP on their Blu-ray movies was due to waiting for Profile 1.1 players. Secondly I am not going to get into another debate about the Blu-ray player profiles and my point was that both HD formats have limitations and that has affected the discs that have been released on them. To me that is obvious though I know some posters would disagree with that.

Care to name the major recent HD DVD releases that would apply to? Remember we are talking about both capacity and bandwidth so if either one is exceeded with the addition of a lossless audio track than it couldn't have been added. Maybe I am just suspicious but when a major release like Transformers doesn't include a lossless audio track it looks to me like it was done because of the limitations of the HD format that was used.


No.

I already danced this dance with Darin a few months back, using a number of examples from Benes A/V specs threads. Serach should find it if you are interested.


Can't studio policy though be caused by the limitations of a HD format? For instance I doubt that Sony didn't use PiP on their movies before Resident Evil: Extinction because they didn't consider it important. Just my opinion but it seems to me like both HD formats have limitations though some posters will deny the limitations of their preferred HD format.


They both sure do have limits. I'm just suggesting Talk can't have it both ways. If the implcation that the end policy is due to physical limits on HD DVD, then why not for BD as well?

Yes, but recent big name movies tend to get much better treatment (such as Ratatouille (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1048/ratatouille.html) and Transformers (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html)) when compared to older or less popular movies. As such are you really going to fault me for asking for some major recent movie examples or does it just so happen that the "number of discs" that scaesare knows of doesn't include any? In fact just curious but what are the "number of discs" he knows of, how does he know they could have included a lossless audio track, and how did he figure out the peak AV bit rate that was used in those movies?

My understanding of the specs (compression and lossless audio) is based on the storage capacity and transfer/bit rate. Both have limits. Yet we see short movies with no Lossless and long movies with it (refer to my Sig for stats)

Has it been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I lower the video bit rate by 2 Mbps that we can actually see this difference?

Just curious but exactly how many of those titles do you know of that could have included a lossless audio track with the video encoding that was used?

Again - see my sig for stats. All HD DVD's are listed. It will take some time because the run time is not shown but each movie is linked to Amazon that does show this.

Are we discussing what is on paper . . . or what we see on a display?

First off you completely misunderstood what I said since obviously Sony waiting to use PiP on their Blu-ray movies was due to waiting for Profile 1.1 players. Secondly I am not going to get into another debate about the Blu-ray player profiles and my point was that both HD formats have limitations and that has affected the discs that have been released on them. To me that is obvious but you can deny that if you want to.

The profiles for BD are not "limitations" at all. The fact that they have waited so long to make a player that conforms to the specs is the issue - and as of today there is STILL no player that I can buy today - right this very second that is 1.1 AND 2.0 compliant - what HD DVD has offered from day one.

And I deny nothing. But I am honest enough to say I do not have all the answers to some of these questions and I do not assume things to try to answer them.

No.

I already danced this dance with Darin a few months back, using a number of examples from Benes A/V specs threads. Serach should find it if you are interested.




They both sure do have limits. I'm just suggesting Talk can't have it both ways. If the implcation that the end policy is due to physical limits on HD DVD, then why not for BD as well?

Where has Darin been? Since Amir ""retired" he seems to have retired.

...snip...

In fact just curious but what are the "number of discs" he knows of, how does he know they could have included a lossless audio track, and how did he figure out the peak AV bit rate that was used in those movies?

...snip...



You hav seen benes' A/V specs threads, right? I used those numbers. If you doubt them, you can take them up with him.

You're in luck... I managed to easily find the thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11387021&postcount=1) to which I referred to above.

I know you'l enjoy it, as I was a good boy and provided math showing my work.

Of course there are people here who routinely watch most or all of the bonus content and some of whom post about it. The fact there are some people who view it doesn't disprove my assertion that at this point the majority of viewers don't.

snip........

To the contrary, given that virtually every BD consumer is an enthusiast I'm sure the bonus viewing rates are much higher than SD DVD.

snip........

I think we've run this one into the ground. Here's my summary:

I'm all in favor of bonus features. The more the better. A large percentage of viewers have little interest in them, however, and rank their importance far below that of the movie content and the quality of the movie presentation.
It's unfortunate that all Blu-ray players don't have secondary video and network support.
The BDA and Blu-ray vendors should educate consumers however possible to the existence of features on some titles which may not be supported by all players.
The fact that BD 1.0 players don't support secondary video impacts a very narrow segment of bonus content and simply doesn't have a significant long-term impact on the studios' ability to deliver great releases.

I'm done.

In all honesty, your position on this is confusing.

If most people aren't interested in these features, why are the studios spending time and money on this? Have you pointed out to the studios that very few people care about these features? If you're correct, the studios should stop wasting their time and money on this effort.

Where has Darin been? Since Amir ""retired" he seems to have retired.

He's posting at the same place as AnthonyP. I don't think we're supposed to mention the name of other forums though.

Where has Darin been? Since Amir ""retired" he seems to have retired.

Good question... I actually can't recall seeing much of him for a while prior to that even.

Excellent contributor here.

I would just like to add that Pearl Harbor on Blu-ray looks awesome, it's 183 minutes long, and yet still has Uncompressed PCM, Dolby 5.1, and French Dolby 5.1, along with special features (videos).

My understanding of the specs (compression and lossless audio) is based on the storage capacity and transfer/bit rate. Both have limits. Yet we see short movies with no Lossless and long movies with it (refer to my Sig for stats)Sure, but there are many factors when it comes to encoding such as difficulty of encoding the movie and the amount of time and effort that is spent on the encoding.


Has it been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I lower the video bit rate by 2 Mbps that we can actually see this difference?Are you saying that we wouldn't see any difference in HD DVD movies if that was done? If so than you have discovered something incredible and you should alert the HD DVD studios to this fact right away ;). Seriously though that is a very hypothetical question and if doing that didn't make any difference than in my opinion lossless audio would be a lot more common on HD DVD. Note though that is just a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.


The fact that they have waited so long to make a player that conforms to the specs is the issue - and as of today there is STILL no player that I can buy today - right this very second that is 1.1 AND 2.0 compliant - what HD DVD has offered from day one.Well there are several things that Blu-ray has that HD DVD doesn't have so that isn't quite accurate since you are referring only to certain specific features. And if you were referring to software support you might want to check the date between when HD DVD was launched and when the firmware update allowing for internet extras was released. Now on the other hand if you are referring to hardware support than what you said about there being no BD-Live compliant players might not be accurate.


You hav seen benes' A/V specs threads, right? I used those numbers. If you doubt them, you can take them up with him.I would have no problem asking benes some questions about how he got his numbers for peak AV bitrate but I have not yet seen any evidence that his numbers support what you have stated in this thread.


You're in luck... I managed to easily find the thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11387021&postcount=1) to which I referred to above.

I know you'l enjoy it, as I was a good boy and provided math showing my work.scaesare, your math in comparing uncompressed with compressed video is amusing but that doesn't provide any evidence for what you have stated in this thread and doesn't answer the questions I have asked.

Troy is also a very long movie and has a TrueHD soundtrack.

In the case of Paramount, they didn't use TrueHD on Shrek or Transformers by choice, not by it not being able to fit. Bandwidth isn't an issue on either of these discs, nor is disc space.

In the case of Paramount, they didn't use TrueHD on Shrek or Transformers by choice, not by it not being able to fit. Bandwidth isn't an issue on either of these discs, nor is disc space.That is a pretty strong statement there and do you have any evidence for that?

And Troy: DC on HD DVD looks awesome, is 198 minutes, and has an impressive Dolby True HD track on it. The Blu-ray version is identical, with the exception of a PCM track.

Other factors, beside space and bandwidth, are the reason for studios opting against putting lossless or uncompressed tracks on their releases.

Perhaps it's a time issue (in the production of the disc). I'm almost certain that if Paramount wanted a True HD track on Transformers, they could have done it, and the quality of the video encode would nto have suffered.

EDIT: I type too slow (had to look up the runtime), Dave beat me to it.

Keep in mind that the first batch of BD paramount titles had no lossless track and Sony encoded those!

A dumb question:

How much more does lossless audio cost over other "lossy" forms?
I mean... could it be that Paramount is testing waters? Meaning that before signing the checks they want to see how many people notice the difference between Transformers' lossy against Spiderman3's lossless?

Could it be that, at this time, when these HD formats are not much profitable, the studio feels that the money is better spent on advanced extras that people can really see and enjoy?