Originally Posted by Richard Paul
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.


I am not sure what you are saying here.

2.0 BD Movies - 2 announced so far for October 2008

2.0 BD Players - none available now. There have been announcements (Daewoo) but it seems to have dropped off the radar screen altogether.

If you are alluding to the upgradeability of the PS3 to 2.0 - no upgrade has been announced that I know of. Do you have info to remedy this?

And yes I am referring to specific features. The first IF HD DVD title was Blood Diamonds - 1 year after launch. If BD makes 2,0 happen (it is not manadatory - it is optional) then it will be almost 2.5 years. Look how long it has taken to get 1.1 out. Yet BD hit the streets 2 years before HD DVD (abiet as a recordable media first then a ROM)

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.


Heroes season 1 and knocked up

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).

Ok, I thought Troy: Directors Cut looked fantastic, it's 198 minutes long, and yet still has lossless TrueHD, Dolby 5.1, and French Dolby 5.1, along with special features (videos).

I don't think this is really the place for these posts though.

Heroes season 1 and knocked up

+ the Freedom series

+ the Freedom series

aye , add in pip and the list grows bigger.

There are alot of bluray discs out there missing the pip features over their sister's verisons .

i would be willing to bet that studios, such as paramount for example, could very well leave out D-THD or any other "desirable" attribute that the a/v rabid's might want bad enough to....buy it again...

yes folks, the old double-dip...

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....

Unless it is a classic title that holds up over time, such as "2001" or "Casablanca," I have no desire to buy any disk without extras. It is enough to see a movie once in the theater (with no extras) or rent it once to see it on disk. If I like it, I might even Netflix it at little or no cost to watch it a second time. You are absolutely correct that DVDs are not like CDs: They are generally not worth watching over and over again.

But, if you take an excellent film and allow the director to show, scene by scene, how and why he did what he did, that has historical and aesthetic value over and above simply watching the movie. Furthermore, if you provide for current viewing of previews online, that is helpful for sorting out what movies might interest the viewer in the future. Watching old trailers on a disk is pretty useless. "Coming attractions" should be exactly that.

For my part, unless it is a film that is aesthetically important to me, I will see it in the theater in its full 35mm glory or rent it once on Netflix. However, if it has features that make it worth keeping, I will buy the disk for future viewing and study.

The studios know this. They want to provide that "extra something" that makes the disk worth purchasing and not just renting.

Paying $25 to watch a movie once or twice isn't even sensible from a financial point of view, unless the goal is simply to accumulate as many red or blue boxes as possible and show them off to your friends. Indeed, if that is the goal, just buy the disks used. That's why the used market in DVDs is so huge. Buying used is almost as good as renting, and you get to keep the disk.

If we are talking about "just the movie," it had better be something more enduring that Spiderman 3 or Shrek the Third, such as a Stanley Kubrick film.

Let me add something here:

If you calculate the total cost of watching each movie in your home theater, including hardware and software, how much does that come to? If you only use your home theater to watch movies, you could easily go to the theater once or twice every weekend for the rest of your life and still not spend as much per movie as you do with your home setup.

The studios know that the home theater experience has got to offer something more than or different from the theater experience (besides the rowdy teenagers and the stale popcorn :)). Having said that, "just the movie" may work when disks can be bought for less than $10. Studios want to avoid going that route with HD DVD or BD, so they support "special content" on disks.

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.

Eh, my bad. I meant to link to the thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11387021#post11387021), as a whole, and not just the post.

The good stuff is a couple pages in. I hope you continue to be amused... I live to please, you know.;)

+ the Freedom series

Are those the Bandai titles? I couldn't remember the name of the movies, just the studio.

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?

A lossless TrueHD track needs 3Mbps. Many of the primary lossy tracks are 1.5Mbs DD+.

So the bandwidth premium is ~1.5Mbps. That's peak however, so the overall extra capacity needed varies based on what the average bitrate of a given soundtrack is. It might need an additional ~1GB storage capacity or so.

{TRANSPLANTED FROM INSIDER'S THREAD}

So wait. If there is a dolby true hd track , dd+ track there has to be enough bandwidth left after the video stream to play back both at the same time ? Why is that ? Wouldn't there simply have to be enough room to play back the highest bit rate version of the sound track ?

Correct.

Everything "selectable" for a feature (video, secondary video, IME, audio tracks, subtitles, etc...) is muxed into a single data stream that must fit within the bandwith constraint.

The primary reason for this is that seeking the head to multiple independent data streams is simply too slow on optical drives. It couldn't bounce between the main video and one audio track fast enough. It would get worse if it had to bounce over to a PiP and subtitle track too.

That is a pretty strong statement there and do you have any evidence for that?


Richard,

I have been told that is the case by more than one encoder that has looked at the disc structure on the HD30's. Both scratched their heads and couldn't figure out "why" they didn't include it. It could have been done if they had wanted to. For some reason, Paramount hasn't shown great support for TrueHD, but hopefully, like Universal, they change their mind.

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?


A lossless TrueHD track needs 3Mbps. Many of the primary lossy tracks are 1.5Mbs DD+.

So the bandwidth premium is ~1.5Mbps. That's peak however, so the overall extra capacity needed varies based on what the average bitrate of a given soundtrack is. It might need an additional ~1GB storage capacity or so.


Actually I was talking about money... ;)

Actually I was talking about money... ;)
There are no extra royalties. However track needs to be tested against the movie to make sure it plays right. And of course, it cost a bit to encode it. So yes, there is a cost to having any additional track. It is not a huge percentage of the overall cost but the cost is there to some extent.

Actually I was talking about money... ;)

LOL!

OK then... well it's Friday!

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.

If it's such a small thing, then why bother faking it with Descent and Cranked? If it's so unimportant, why are Fox and Disney making such a big deal of it in their press releases? If no one cares, then why is the BDA making it such a huge point of their promotion materials and Demo Discs?

Or, is it just unimportant and overstated now because Blu-ray can't do it? And once Blu-ray can do it, then it will be sold as something better than sliced bread? :rolleyes:

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.


So can the same be said for the Bandwidth and Capacity advantages of Blu-ray? Are these being overstated here? Does your wife happen to care how much Bandwidth and Capacity a Blu-ray movie has? Does the general consumer say, "Man, I need to get my hands on this title. It's 50GB and has loads of bandwidth being used!" ?


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 are no PiP Blu-ray titles. There are no Network enabled Blu-ray titles. So yah, I'd say 'zero' is a good word.

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.

You forgot to mention that a lot of these cheerleaders were telling everyone how PiP would be better on Blu-ray because it would support HD PiP -- which we found out was completely wrong (not by any BDA admission mind you, but by data from outside the BDA). They explained away the wait for Profile 1.1 on this same criteria -- higher requirements for PiP. Well, those requirements don't exist as there is no HD PiP, yet the wait remained. I wonder why?

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 propositionOr they are pushing for next-gen support because it's an important differentiator from legacy DVD and a minority of consumers actually spend much time with those features today.
* Either extra BR capacity allows for more/better content OR dual-encode PiP is for real and that extra capacity is largely negated.Or extra BD capacity allows for more/better content and that capacity allows the flexibility to do dual encoding on many titles. Don't forget, the extra capacity requirements are quite modest - if you are only showing PiP for 1/4 of the movie (i.e. when there's something interesting to see, you're only adding 25% to the portion of the disc allocated to the movie itself (i.e. excluding all the extra features), which is well under the 67% capacity difference between the formats.
* 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.Or they'll be reserved in marketing those features in the first part of 2008 and they'll become more prevalent and prominent later in the year as the installed base of Bonus View players grows as a percentage of the overall installed base.

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."First of all, it actually adds to Blu-ray's bandwidth advantage, as dual-encoded PiP doesn't take up additional bandwidth, whereas secondary video PiP does require additional bandwidth (leaving less for the primary A/V regardless of whether the viewer is watching the PiP window). Second of all, "unable to perceive a meaningful difference" means it's the same experience. Why does a consumer care how it's implemented if it looks and acts exactly the same, which will generally be the case (other than 300-style full-movie PiP)?!?

A few things are very clear in all of this.
1. The PS3 can no longer win this. I don't think we yet know whether the 175K PS3's sold in the first two weeks of the price cut (and obviously more to come) will have a greater impact than the 50-100K A2's sold in the clearance sale.

2.0 BD Movies - 2 announced so far for October 2008Plus one announced for January 1st, 2008 (War), plus others I know about which you may not.
2.0 BD Players - none available now. There have been announcements (Daewoo) but it seems to have dropped off the radar screen altogether.Haven't both the Samsung and LG combo players been announced as upgradeable to BD Live? Did anyone know the Panasonic 1.1 player was coming before it was announced?
And yes I am referring to specific features. The first IF HD DVD title was Blood Diamonds - 1 year after launch. If BD makes 2,0 happen (it is not manadatory - it is optional) then it will be almost 2.5 years.How so? With War due out on January 1st that'll be six months after Blood Diamond. Yet BD hit the streets 2 years before HD DVD (abiet as a recordable media first then a ROM)A meaningless fact since you couldn't play back pre-recorded media.

I don't think we yet know whether the 175K PS3's sold in the first two weeks of the price cut (and obviously more to come) will have a greater impact than the 50-100K A2's sold in the clearance sale.

Well being that the competition for the PS3 sold double that without price cuts, we may have a clue.

First of all, it actually adds to Blu-ray's bandwidth advantage, as dual-encoded PiP doesn't take up additional bandwidth, whereas secondary video PiP does require additional bandwidth (leaving less for the primary A/V regardless of whether the viewer is watching the PiP window). Second of all, "unable to perceive a meaningful difference" means it's the same experience. Why does a consumer care how it's implemented if it looks and acts exactly the same, which will generally be the case (other than 300-style full-movie PiP)?!?

But it doubles the space needed, right? So Blu-ray has a bandwidth advantage with Dual Encoded PiP, but then runs into a *major* space issue as the feature has to be restricted to < 25GB, no?

And if you can't just turn it on/off like a toggle and you need to return to the main menu to turn it on/off, etc. It's not the same experience.

Of course, if you want to argue/debate that, can't we easily say that even with Blu-ray's capacity and bandwidth advantage consumers are "unable to perceive a meaningful difference" in quality? IOW: As far as PQ/AQ are concerned, consumers are getting the same experience. Therefore, why buy Blu-ray? It's 2-3x more money (at a minimum) and it has less standard features. Clearly the value is with HD DVD, no?

Plus one announced for January 1st, 2008 (War), plus others I know about which you may not.

Resident Evil: Extinction maybe? ;)

First of all, it actually adds to Blu-ray's bandwidth advantage, as dual-encoded PiP doesn't take up additional bandwidth, whereas secondary video PiP does require additional bandwidth (leaving less for the primary A/V regardless of whether the viewer is watching the PiP window). Second of all, "unable to perceive a meaningful difference" means it's the same experience. Why does a consumer care how it's implemented if it looks and acts exactly the same, which will generally be the case (other than 300-style full-movie PiP)?!?

Adds to BD's advantage?? Having to size the encode so it doesn't take up more than 25 GIG (or that the sum of the two don't surpass 50 GIG) when 50 GIG was available is an advantage?? And how do they make it smaller to not exceed that number if it's a movie of any kind of duration? They lower the Mbps. So there goes that bandwidth advantage. Not because of them having to be in the same bit bucket at the same time, but because the lower rate would have to be used to create a smaller file to not exceed the storage that has been cut in half.

And second, you dodged my question completely...what's the "meaningful difference" an "average consumer" is going to notice in PQ/AQ provided by that bandwidth and storage? The difference between 19 Mbps vs 25 Mbps encoded video?? The difference of 1.5 MB DD+ (and sometimes TrueHD itself) vs PCM/TrueHD?? These are going to be "meaningful differences" the "average customer" is going to be able to pick up on?

Talkstr8t:

You keep mentioning WAR as a 2.0 title for Jan. yet the announcement only said 1.1 PIP. Nothing at all was said about 2.0 BD Live. I know you said you saw it demo'd with that feature and also stated that maybe it would not make it to the production disc.

Now you are changing that statement? Becaue I see no proof that WAR will be anything but a 1.1 title. Can you offer additional proof like a link of some kind?

Technical Specs
Blu-ray
BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc
BD-Java Enhanced
Profile 1.1-Enabled
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1189/war.html

Or they are pushing for next-gen support because it's an important differentiator from legacy DVD and a minority of consumers actually spend much time with those features today.

A minority???

The advent of extras were the biggest innovation brought by the DVD. And the existence of extras alone makes many many discs to be sold.

I find it incredible that the Blu-ray camp constantly downplays the importance and popularity of extras (like if it were more a nuisance than a fantastic thing) when it is obvious they do know how important they really are for today's audiences. So much that that's where the big revenues are (DVDs). So much that the specs were changed in order to incorporate capacities only available for the competing format.

The extras were one of the few things that actually shifted the focus of the whole film Industry, from theatrical exhibition to home video. It was also (not only) because of the extras that the DVD accomplished in 5 years something VHS did not do in 20.

So you say that only a minority of people like extras?
A minority of customers DO NOT LIKE multiple discs and Blu-ray did not change that. A minority (Europe) of customers DO NOT LIKE region coding and Blu-ray did not change that (much).

It is very interesting when the BDA's official discourse right now is something like "at this moment we are solely worried about bringing the best image and sound". That is a nice way of saying "at this moment, all we can give everybody is great image and sound... please be more patient and in some months we'll have the rest" - which obviously cannot be said because it looks bad.

Thanks.

A minority???

The advent of extras were the biggest innovation brought by the DVD. And the existence of extras alone makes many many discs to be sold.

I find it incredible that the Blu-ray camp constantly downplays the importance and popularity of extras (like if it were more a nuisance than a fantastic thing) when it is obvious they do know how important they really are for today's audiences. So much that that's where the big revenues are (DVDs). So much that the specs were changed in order to incorporate capacities only available for the competing format.

The extras were one of the few things that actually shifted the focus of the whole film Industry, from theatrical exhibition to home video. It was also (not only) because of the extras that the DVD accomplished in 5 years something VHS did not do in 20.

So you say that only a minority of people like extras?
A minority of customers DO NOT LIKE multiple discs and Blu-ray did not change that. A minority (Europe) of customers DO NOT LIKE region coding and Blu-ray did not change that (much).

It is very interesting when the BDA's official discourse right now is something like "at this moment we are solely worried about bringing the best image and sound". That is a nice way of saying "at this moment, all we can give everybody is great image and sound... please be more patient and in some months we'll have the rest" - which obviously cannot be said because it looks bad.

Thanks.

They will use them for double dipping ;)

Haven't both the Samsung and LG combo players been announced as upgradeable to BD Live?

The LG has, but the Samsung combo player so far has only been announced as 1.1 "ready". The memory from what I can remember from reports was only going to be 256(or 512) MB. There is no USB on this unit (pre productions) so it would miss "fully" meeting the 2.0 profile spec of 1GB. While it may be able to do some of the features with its Ethernet connection, I am not sure how much of a benifit it would be with the missing memory. I am no insider, but have been following the Samsung closely.

If it's such a small thing, then why bother faking it with Descent and Cranked?How is it faked? Both of those movies have stellar video quality (in spite of dual encoding), and the commentary tracks are highly-rated. Nothing fake there.
If it's so unimportant, why are Fox and Disney making such a big deal of it in their press releases?It's not so unimportant, but the details of how it's implemented are. And it's still just one of many types of bonus features, each of which tends to be well-publicized when it first appears.

There are no PiP Blu-ray titles.Of course there are. The Descent, Crank, Cars, Dragon's Lair, Terminator 3 (upcoming), and others I can't recall.

Well being that the competition for the PS3 sold double that without price cuts, we may have a clue.How do Wii sales have any bearing on Blu-ray or HD DVD?

How is it faked? Both of those movies have stellar video quality (in spite of dual encoding), and the commentary tracks are highly-rated. Nothing fake there.
It's not so unimportant, but the details of how it's implemented are. And it's still just one of many types of bonus features, each of which tends to be well-publicized when it first appears.
It's fake because it takes two full versions of the movie to do it. That could have been done with DVD. Doesn't sound very "next gen" to me.

How do Wii sales have any bearing on Blu-ray or HD DVD?

Because Wii sales keep PS3 sales low and stop o it from becoming the savior of BD. The PS3 is a game console after all. Sony wanted confusion. They got confusion.

But it doubles the space needed, right?No. Take a typical two hour movie @ 15Mbps average (a reasonably high rate), which requires 13.5GB. Assume 1/4 of the commentary has useful video to go with it, that brings you to just under 17GB. Still gives you plenty of room for the rest even before you go to 50GB disc.
And if you can't just turn it on/off like a toggle and you need to return to the main menu to turn it on/off, etc.Depends on how it's authored. With seamless branching you can allow it to be turned on and off at will (not instanteously, but within a short amount of time) and without jumping out to the menu. And, incidentally, the original Warner PiP on HD DVD required you to go to the menu to turn it off. It's all in the authoring.

Because Wii sales keep PS3 sales low and stop o it from becoming the savior of BD. The PS3 is a game console after all. Sony wanted confusion. They got confusion.Sorry, most analysts agree that the Wii is largely targeting a different audience than the PS3 and Xbox360.

You keep mentioning WAR as a 2.0 title for Jan. yet the announcement only said 1.1 PIP. Nothing at all was said about 2.0 BD Live. I know you said you saw it demo'd with that feature and also stated that maybe it would not make it to the production disc.They said they were keeping the network aspect low key. We'll see when it comes out whether it's there, but I can assure you we'll see network-enabled discs well in advance of October, 2008.

So you say that only a minority of people like extras? No, I'm saying a minority of people actually listen to / watch the director's commentary. Many people check out deleted scenes and gag reels, fewer check out "making of", and far fewer actually listen to commentary. Do you disagree?

No, I'm saying a minority of people actually listen to / watch the director's commentary. Many people check out deleted scenes and gag reels, fewer check out "making of", and far fewer actually listen to commentary. Do you disagree?

Fine. Tell Warner and Disney it isn't important and make the movie 40 gb.

I thought you were done? ;)

Or they are pushing for next-gen support because it's an important differentiator from legacy DVD and a minority of consumers actually spend much time with those features today.

Yet the fractured player base makes advertising that differentiator difficult enough that you have informed us studios may opt to not do it at all.

And I seriously question your "minority" assessment. It's not my experience with HD media. And there was just a thread stating that a surprising large percentage of the Walmart sale HD DVD decks registered online with one of the discs special features, indicating an interest beyond "just show me he movie". Do you have anything to support this in the HD arena other than just your opinion?

Or extra BD capacity allows for more/better content and that capacity allows the flexibility to do dual encoding on many titles. Don't forget, the extra capacity requirements are quite modest - if you are only showing PiP for 1/4 of the movie (i.e. when there's something interesting to see, you're only adding 25% to the portion of the disc allocated to the movie itself (i.e. excluding all the extra features), which is well under the 67% capacity difference between the formats.

I think 25% may be a bit low. And what happened to the need for GREATER than 30GB for higher bitrate video + multiple lossless + IME, etc? With just those things, looking at Benes's "BD specs" thread there are LOTS of discs in the high 30's and 40's of GB in size WITHOUT the fake PiP track. How are you going to encode 25+% more content on Pearl harbor (47GB), PotC I(45.5), Pirates II(42GB), 28 Days Later (44GB), Fantastic 4(42.5GB), The Fly (48GB), KoH (44GB), etc...?

Once again, it becomes an either/or proposition.


Or they'll be reserved in marketing those features in the first part of 2008 and they'll become more prevalent and prominent later in the year as the installed base of Bonus View players grows as a percentage of the overall installed base.

It's likely that the attach rate for the PS3 is pretty bad. Therefore standalone decks are going to be where this battle will probably be fought. How many such BV capable decks do you think will be sold in the next 6 weeks? Especially given that:

- The MAJORITY of players still on the market are 1.0
- The 1.0 players are cheaper
- Thanks to the BDA, the average consumer doesn't know any better to look for a 1.1 deck

First of all, it actually adds to Blu-ray's bandwidth advantage, as dual-encoded PiP doesn't take up additional bandwidth, whereas secondary video PiP does require additional bandwidth (leaving less for the primary A/V regardless of whether the viewer is watching the PiP window). Second of all, "unable to perceive a meaningful difference" means it's the same experience. Why does a consumer care how it's implemented if it looks and acts exactly the same, which will generally be the case (other than 300-style full-movie PiP)?!?

Can we please cut the "no meaningful difference" with fake PiP stuff, please?

WAYS FAKE PIP IS VISIBLE TO THE CONSUMER:

- Can require a restart of content from beginning of movie
- Window not re-sizable
- Window not movable
- Cannot play new content from secondary storage or network
- Cannot start/stop PiP at arbitrary point


WAYS FAKE PIP IS IMPACTS THE AUTHOR

- Diminished disc capacity
- Bitrate limits at branch points
- May require content restarts
- Multiple video encodes

A QUESTION REGARDING FAKE PIP:

What happens when an author wants to use branching for another purpose (i.e. extra scenes for a director's cut), AND has secondary PiP content?

- Does he have to now have FOUR versions of the video (primary, Primary+FPiP, branched-content, branched-content+FPiP)?
- Can you have that many branches?
- What does THAT do to your overall capacity?

Seriously. Your attempts to suggest that it differs in no meaningful way is untrue, both for the consumer, and the author.

And what's more, I gave FAR more examples of PiP being useful than JUST 300's green-screen example.

Talkstr8t:

You keep mentioning WAR as a 2.0 title for Jan. yet the announcement only said 1.1 PIP. Nothing at all was said about 2.0 BD Live. I know you said you saw it demo'd with that feature and also stated that maybe it would not make it to the production disc.

Now you are changing that statement? Becaue I see no proof that WAR will be anything but a 1.1 title. Can you offer additional proof like a link of some kind?
Technical Specs
Blu-ray
BD-50 Dual-Layer Disc
BD-Java Enhanced
Profile 1.1-Enabled

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1189/war.html

What's "BD-Java Enhanced" mean?

A minority???

The advent of extras were the biggest innovation brought by the DVD. And the existence of extras alone makes many many discs to be sold.

I find it incredible that the Blu-ray camp constantly downplays the importance and popularity of extras (like if it were more a nuisance than a fantastic thing) when it is obvious they do know how important they really are for today's audiences. So much that that's where the big revenues are (DVDs). So much that the specs were changed in order to incorporate capacities only available for the competing format.

The extras were one of the few things that actually shifted the focus of the whole film Industry, from theatrical exhibition to home video. It was also (not only) because of the extras that the DVD accomplished in 5 years something VHS did not do in 20.

So you say that only a minority of people like extras?
A minority of customers DO NOT LIKE multiple discs and Blu-ray did not change that. A minority (Europe) of customers DO NOT LIKE region coding and Blu-ray did not change that (much).

It is very interesting when the BDA's official discourse right now is something like "at this moment we are solely worried about bringing the best image and sound". That is a nice way of saying "at this moment, all we can give everybody is great image and sound... please be more patient and in some months we'll have the rest" - which obviously cannot be said because it looks bad.

Thanks.

Talk, you do need to back that up. I agree with Technicolor's point here: Data indicates special editions w/ additional content outsell standard editions TODAY, despite being priced higher.

This matches my experience.
And my earlier point about 33% of online registrations for the Walmart-sold players. (And one might expect WM sales to represent the LEAST likely to investigate such features)

All this data points towards significant interest in features OTHER than just the movie.

What data do you have to support your assertion it's a minority (you've also used 15% as your estimate, IIRC).

Sorry, most analysts agree that the Wii is largely targeting a different audience than the PS3 and Xbox360.

It seems that Howard Stringer's point of view differs from yours.

Price cut boosts PS3 sales 250-300%
CEO thinks PS3 will benefit from Wii shortages

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=30646

"It's the breakthrough we've been anticipating," Sony chairman and CEO Howard Stringer told The Associated Press. "We've been holding our breath."
Stringer said that the price cut and introduction of a cheaper console makes the PS3 more competitive against Nintendo's Wii and Microsoft's Xbox 360 as the holiday season opens.

"Obviously, we've taken so much heat over the year on PS3. Finally, the turning point has been passed," he said.

Stringer also said that Sony is poised to benefit from the difficulty Nintendo has had producing Wii consoles fast enough to keep up with demand.

"It's a little fortuitous that the Wii is running out of hardware."
Nintendo has shipped 9.3 million Wii consoles worldwide as of October, but is expected to ship 22.3 million by March 2008. Sony has sold 5 million PS3 consoles worldwide as of October and hopes to ship 11 million by March 2008.

***********
I'd like to point out that Sony shipped 5.5 million PS3s by March 2007, yet as of October, they had only sold about 5 Million units. Keep that in mind when Sony says they will ship 11 Million PS3s by March 2008.

How is it faked? Both of those movies have stellar video quality (in spite of dual encoding), and the commentary tracks are highly-rated. Nothing fake there.

Because the BD Spec Books have a descrition of how it is implemented and performed. These ain't it. And the cutomer experience is impacted. Hence fake.

It's not so unimportant, but the details of how it's implemented are. And it's still just one of many types of bonus features, each of which tends to be well-publicized when it first appears.

You are wrong. Something as simple as having to restart a movie is enought to turn people off. You may want to argue how importnat that it, but the fact remains it's just one example of how faking it has caused some differences.

Let me ask you a question: If one of the HD DVD titles that currently fits on a SL 15GB disc were re-released on a DL 30GB with a secondary encode containing a 720p PiP image burned into it, would you agree that HD DVD supports HD PiP?

Of course there are. The Descent, Crank, Cars, Dragon's Lair, Terminator 3 (upcoming), and others I can't recall.

Could any of those titles implement seamless branching for a Director's cut if they so chose?

No. Take a typical two hour movie @ 15Mbps average (a reasonably high rate), which requires 13.5GB.

Somebody PLEASE drag Darinp2 back over here to read this!!

Thanks Talk!

No, I'm saying a minority of people actually listen to / watch the director's commentary. Many people check out deleted scenes and gag reels, fewer check out "making of", and far fewer actually listen to commentary. Do you disagree?

I ask: Why would you assume that, with new capability, the existing format for extras holds? I find commentary much more compelling in the new format.

The relative percentages to each other may hold, but on the whole it appears to me they are all rising.

Talkstr8t:

Let us know when a BD title supports dynamically swappable, movable primary and secondary video streams, resizing them, with variable transparency, all in one title. (See Bandai's Freedom HD DVD discs)

*That* is PiP. Not some hard-coded video insert reminiscent of the video insertions used to stick someone signing for the hearing impaired into a corner of the screen :)

What's "BD-Java Enhanced" mean?

To my understanding - it means that it will include games and such.

Talkstr8t:

How does the BDA intend to answer the DL and TL Twin that HD DVD will be putting out next year?

To my understanding - it means that it will include games and such.

what happened to "just give us the damned movie..." :eek:

No. Take a typical two hour movie @ 15Mbps average (a reasonably high rate), which requires 13.5GB. Assume 1/4 of the commentary has useful video to go with it, that brings you to just under 17GB. Still gives you plenty of room for the rest even before you go to 50GB disc.


:eek:

Did I just read this right??

*rubs eyes*

*cleans glasses*

ABR of 15Mbps is now "reasonably high" and 17GB should cover it all?? That runs just a tad contrary to what I like to affectionately refer to as the popular "blu-book estimates." :confused:

Huh. Guess 50 GIG wasn't necessary all along for all those BD titles that don't even have pseudo-PiP. Who would have thought?


Somebody PLEASE drag Darinp2 back over here to read this!!

And bring RBFilms with him!

what happened to "just give us the damned movie..." :eek:

There was an extensive interview with Bob Iger (I believe) from Disney a few months ago - He specifically stated that the advanced features of HDM like IME and IF were going to be the reason why HDM will succeed with the public.

Kornblah of Universal said the same thing. He said they have proof of this in their sales of feature enriched DVD's - that almost always outsell "stripped" DVD's of the same title.

The public could care less about PQ and AQ - this is a known fact. So if HDM is to suceed and flourish, it has to offer something else to gain the public's interest - and IME and IF are the answers.

I could link the interviews - but now making second cup of coffee - too lazy:p

There was an extensive interview with Bob Iger (I believe) from Disney a few months ago - He specifically stated that the advanced features of HDM like IME and IF were going to be the reason why HDM will succeed with the public.

Kornblah of Universal said the same thing. He said they have proof of this in their sales of feature enriched DVD's - that almost always outsell "stripped" DVD's of the same title.

The public could care less about PQ and AQ - this is a known fact. So if HDM is to suceed and flourish, it has to offer something else to gain the public's interest - and IME and IF are the answers.

I could link the interviews - but now making second cup of coffee - too lazy:p

just made my second cup and read your post :)

while this is not true for myself (other than the nice slick menus and the fact that you can access and make changes while the title is playing), i don't necessarily disagree, i was simply being sarcastic :)

imo, however, i don't see this really happening unless interactivity INCLUDES web-enabled features...not just "gamey" type interactivity.

just made my second cup and read your post :)

while this is not true for myself (other than the nice slick menus and the fact that you can access and make changes while the title is playing), i don't necessarily disagree, i was simply being sarcastic :)

imo, however, i don't see this really happening unless interactivity INCLUDES web-enabled features...not just "gamey" type interactivity.

OK - 2nd cup is made so brain is now in 2nd gear:p

IF - means Web Enable. ALL the studios see IF as a doorway to the future . . . and of course additional revenue - something that is gaining more importance each day as movie studios face higher and higher costs. Lionsgate just had their best Q3 ever! . . . and lost $53 million doing it.

The king of merchandising, Disney, wants the ability to once again sell all of their movie related stuff to the public. HD DVD just organized a new "company" to explore uses for IF.

IMHO - games are a gimmic - THAT is not my definition of IF.

As the potential of the internet has showed us limitless uses - so will IF as it relates to movies.

What happens when you rewind after the return from a branch point to the main video?

Do you rewind back thru the branch you took, or does it rewind the main track you are currently on?

(I'd guess the latter)?

{REPLIES BELOW TRANSPLANTED FROM INSIDER'S THREAD}

"Combined with the PS3, that's ~5.3Mil BD players.

And that the XBox addon has been said to have sold ~170K units. So there may be ~500K HD DVD players in the wild.

Yet the movie disc sales ratio of BD to HD DVD is ~2:1 despite there being >10:1 hardware difference." --scaesare

I would ask an Insider, are these numbers scaesare uses close to accurate? Is not the 5.3 million number for P3s a figure for worldwide sales? In the U.S., are not PS3 sales actually less than 2 million units (around 1.7 mil)? And haven't the bulk of the Toshiba stand-alone player sales been within the U.S.? So, isn't the total number of Blu-ray capable players (counting PS3s) in the U.S. more like about 1.8 million at the moment compared to about 600,000 HD DVD capable players (counting Xbox add-ons and the recent Toshiba weekend sale)? Wouldn't that be approximately a 3:1 advantage for Blu-ray players in the U.S.? And are not the sales figures we keep hearing for Blu-ray vs. HD DVD discs of 2:1 (actually more like 3:2 in the past four months) the figures for U.S. retailers only?

Insiders please confirm: Are not the U.S. numbers at the moment, therefore, more like 3:1 in favor of Blu-ray players and 3:2 in favor of Blu-ray disc sales?

One final question for Insiders: I've heard it said here and other places that the format war will be won in the U.S. because that's where the big Hollywood studios sell most of their product. Do you think that's true or false or something in between?

John

Ony a THIRD of PS3 sold to sonsumers are in the US? That seems odd.

I'm not an insider, but I can point you in the right direction of the figures, if that's allowed.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Milestone/1156

9 days ago it was said that, in the USA:

HD DVD standalones approaching 500,000
PS3s 2,200,000
BD standalones 335,000 (based on a 60:40 HD DVD standalone lead)
360 add-ons 210,000

Link for that last one:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article....html?nid=2705

With 20% of PS3 owners using the PS3 as a BD player (there was an NPD survey of 6,000 PS3 owners - can't find the link) that makes:

HD DVD Players = 710,000
BD players 775,000

Remember that 100,000 of those HD DVD players have been sold on/since the Wal-Mart sub-$100 A2 weekend. And, of course, if anyone bought a HD DVD at the same time as the player, it wouldn't have counted on the Nielsen figures.

Remember also that since then we've had Spider-Man, and Ratatouille on Blu-ray Disc (1st & 8th in this year's box-office), and no new titles on HD DVD except Chuck & Larry (16th this year), and I think the reasons for 65:35 this week are pretty obvious.

Steve W


Why are you not including the those other 80% of PS3's?

That' my point: the attach rates for the PS 3 may be abysmal.

{REPLIES BELOW TRANSPLANTED FROM INSIDER'S THREAD}

Ony a THIRD of PS3 sold to sonsumers are in the US? That seems odd.

http://www.vgchartz.com/

Interesting. :)

Should we expect more murderous $99 HD DVD players shopping sprees before Xmas?

Interesting. :)

Should we expect more murderous $99 HD DVD players shopping sprees before Xmas?

I doubt it. IMO - the A2's are gone. Now it is the A3 and maybe we will see Wal-Mart sell that at $149 which is almost the same as an A2 at $98 due to the 2 free movies in the box.

The Wal-Mart BF ads comes out Monday

I doubt it. IMO - the A2's are gone. Now it is the A3 and maybe we will see Wal-Mart sell that at $149 which is almost the same as an A2 at $98 due to the 2 free movies in the box.

The Wal-Mart BF ads comes out Monday

The Wal-Mart BF ad has already leaked. Nothing in there about high def players or media. However, the ad also mentions that special deals will be posted on their Website on Thanksgiving Day. That's when I expect we'll find out about any high def deals.

How is it faked? Both of those movies have stellar video quality (in spite of dual encoding), and the commentary tracks are highly-rated. Nothing fake there.

Ahhh ... steller video quality? That's great news! I guess this does *confirm* then that even 25GB is good enough for steller video quality.

Why do we need 50GB again? Oh, yah, so you can fake PiP on Blu-ray. Other than that? Apparently not necessary. ;)


It's not so unimportant, but the details of how it's implemented are. And it's still just one of many types of bonus features, each of which tends to be well-publicized when it first appears.

Ah, so the details are umimportant. Yet we keep hearing about higher capacity and bandwidth -- details, which obviously aren't very important considering you just mentioned steller video quality above on a release that used less than 25GB of space.

The Wal-Mart BF ad has already leaked. Nothing in there about high def players or media. However, the ad also mentions that special deals will be posted on their Website on Thanksgiving Day. That's when I expect we'll find out about any high def deals.

Well we still have the A3 deals at:

$150 at HHGregg
$170 at Sears
$199 at BB

Very surprised that we have seen nothing for the 360 A0

Of course there are. The Descent, Crank, Cars, Dragon's Lair, Terminator 3 (upcoming), and others I can't recall.

Fake PiP ... you can claim they're the same experience all you want; but it's pretty clear that the experience is quite different.

Can you toggle it on/off? Can you move it around the screen? I don't think so. ;)

No. Take a typical two hour movie @ 15Mbps average (a reasonably high rate), which requires 13.5GB. Assume 1/4 of the commentary has useful video to go with it, that brings you to just under 17GB. Still gives you plenty of room for the rest even before you go to 50GB disc.

How many 'Fake PiP' titles are on BD25? Yup, none. Looking at the file structure for The Descent and Cranked -- they were completely separate encodes of the full movie.

Also, I find it interesting that you say 15Mbps is a 'reasonably high rate' above, yet suggest that 32mbps Total Bandwidth for HD DVD isn't more than enough. :rolleyes:

I guess all these talking points of capacity and bitrate are just that -- talking points. With no 'meaningful difference to the consumer', what is the point of them? In the end, it just seems like it's a "leftover" from the BD-Recordable Format. It all started out as a recording-based MPEG2 format. 50GB was needed to record long shows at bitrates required by MPEG2. Since they moved this more to ROM and dropped MPEG2 for the most part, those things weren't needed any longer. Something tells me that if Blu-ray started off as a ROM format, all we'd know about is AVC and BD25. ;)


Depends on how it's authored. With seamless branching you can allow it to be turned on and off at will (not instanteously, but within a short amount of time) and without jumping out to the menu. And, incidentally, the original Warner PiP on HD DVD required you to go to the menu to turn it off. It's all in the authoring.

How many 'Fake PiP' titles are authored using seamless branching? Yup, none. If it's so easy to do that way, why did they bother wasting all that extra space?

As far as the original Warner PiP, that's fine. They *chose* to do it that way, it wasn't a limitation of the Format like it is on Blu-ray. :)

Sorry, most analysts agree that the Wii is largely targeting a different audience than the PS3 and Xbox360.

Most Analysts also agree that the PS3 is a complete failure thusfar. They also agree that Sony is losing boatloads of cash on subsidy. Are we really using analysts as barometers of this whole thing? :confused:

btw, didn't Stringer recently say that he hopes the PS3 sales will benefit from Wii shortages? I'll see if I can find the link, but clearly he thinks that Nintendo's manufacturing/shipping delays are going to *help* PS3 sales.

EDIT: nvm, someone already posted the link.

I doubt it. IMO - the A2's are gone. Now it is the A3 and maybe we will see Wal-Mart sell that at $149 which is almost the same as an A2 at $98 due to the 2 free movies in the box.

The Wal-Mart BF ads comes out Monday

Actually, there are still A2's in channel. ;)

Actually, there are still A2's in channel. ;)

But in large quantities? Sure someone Value Electronics may have 20 or other HT gear sellers.

You believe there are 50,000+ more?

How many 'Fake PiP' titles are authored using seamless branching? Yup, none. If it's so easy to do that way, why did they bother wasting all that extra space?

I'm pretty sure that Cars and Ratatouille both use seamless branching to achieve PiP (they call it Cine-Explore or something like that.) I've only watched it on Cars so far, but I was very happy with the results.

I'm pretty sure that Cars and Ratatouille both use seamless branching to achieve PiP (they call it Cine-Explore or something like that.) I've only watched it on Cars so far, but I was very happy with the results.

Yep:

The second way is to use the disc's highly-touted "Cine-Explore" mode. Combining picture-in-picture with seamless branching, all channeled through a BD-Java-enhanced interface, there are two viewing modes. "Auto" is just that -- flick it on, and like one of Warner's "In-Movie Experience" tracks, you can just sit back and enjoy the flow of content as pre-programmed on the disc. The other option is "Manual." Here, a cute dashboard overlay graphic pops up, with the supplemental content identified under various label headings (including audio commentaries, production artwork, deleted scenes and featurettes). As the movie plays, when content is available, its relevant label on the dashboard will light up. Much like Universal's "U-Control" feature on HD DVDs, you can then select the content you want to watch as you go. If the material is in the form of a pop-up (such as production artwork) it appears in a picture-in-picture box, while other content (such as a deleted scene) will function as a branching vignette, which takes you to the appropriate clip, and then returns you back to the point in the flick where you left off
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/630/cars.html

Why are you not including the those other 80% of PS3's?

I was just trying to answer the question - why does Nielsen say 65:35 when the hardware sales are like they are. The NPD data pretty much answers the question..

That' my point: the attach rates for the PS 3 may be abysmal.

I agree. Only why is anyone surprised?

Of course lots of people will buy it as a games console, not a film player. Why should we expect large numbers to pay extra for high def discs, when they're not A/V nuts like us.

Steve W

http://www.vgchartz.com/

That chart says 2.3Mil Ps3's. So the total BD decks in the US is approaching 3Mil.

As opposed to 500-600K HD DVD decks.

A ~5:1 hardware ratio is generating a 2:1 disc ratio.

I suspect that other poll estimate of only 20% of PS3 owners using it for movies is exactly right, which is what I said earlier when Talk mentioned that 90% of BD decks would soon be 1.1 compliant.... using that idea to suggest that such a small set of folks would be "stuck" with 1.0 players that there was little danger of alienating their user base by promoting 1.1 content.

The reality is that it's likely that folks with only 1.0 capable hardware may represent 50% or more of the BD-disc buying base... and they likely have no idea their machines are only 1.0 capable.

I was just trying to answer the question - why does Nielsen say 65:35 when the hardware sales are like they are. The NPD data pretty much answers the question..


The question had to do with attach rates. Hence when you say call it "BD players 775,000" and compare to the disc sales, it completely skews the results, no?

"Attach rates are great... as long as we don't count the 80% of machines where they stink!" :rolleyes:

Yep:


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/630/cars.html

How would one accomodate a deleted scene with PiP?

How would one accomodate a deleted scene with PiP?

Wouldn't that be a seperate menu selection?

Or did I not understand your question correctly.

Wouldn't that be a seperate menu selection?

Or did I not understand your question correctly.

It relates to a question I posted in a response to Talk: does this now require FOUR seperate encodes to accomodate the combinations of branch + PiP options?

"unable to perceive a meaningful difference" means it's the same experience. Why does a consumer care how it's implemented if it looks and acts exactly the same. . .If one were to take this quote out of context, and instead apply it toward Blu-ray and HD DVD in general, I think you have a succinct summary of the battle:

To the vast majority of consumers, there is simply no difference in the primary movie-watching experience of either format.

Scott

It relates to a question I posted in a response to Talk: does this now require FOUR seperate encodes to accomodate the combinations of branch + PiP options?

From my post #1574 above:

If the material is in the form of a pop-up (such as production artwork) it appears in a picture-in-picture box, while other content (such as a deleted scene) will function as a branching vignette, which takes you to the appropriate clip, and then returns you back to the point in the flick where you left off

In laymans terms as I understand this:

I am on a highway (the movie itself) driving along - I pass a rest stop (something that coorelates to the movie at that time) - I can choose to watch it with the "dashboard" overlay that lights up when it becomes available - then continue on the highway until the next rest stop where again this happens.

"Hey - you with the saw . . get away from my limb!):p

From my post #1574 above:

Which doesn't address the issue of whether it's possible to have PiP on the branched scenes, and if so how many encodes it would require.

Please look at the quote you provided. It appears to be an "either/or" scenario. I'm asking about an "and" scenario.

I'm pretty sure that Cars and Ratatouille both use seamless branching to achieve PiP (they call it Cine-Explore or something like that.) I've only watched it on Cars so far, but I was very happy with the results.

Thanks! ;)

Can we please cut the "no meaningful difference" with fake PiP stuff, please?

WAYS FAKE PIP IS VISIBLE TO THE CONSUMER:

- Can require a restart of content from beginning of movie
- Window not re-sizable
- Window not movable
- Cannot play new content from secondary storage or network
- Cannot start/stop PiP at arbitrary pointYes, carefully authored PiP using secondary video can be more flexible than the equivalent using dual encoding. This is irrelevant, however, since a)every issue you raise has been the case on many HD DVD releases, and b)even if PiP is authored to be movable or resizable, how many people actually care about that feature? And however many care about it, an even fewer number will be bothered if it's not available.

I'll repeat again, PiP content can absolutely be authored on most movies using dual encoding in a way which will be entirely satisfactory for the vast majority of viewer and which won't unduly impact disc size/capacity.

WAYS FAKE PIP IS IMPACTS THE AUTHOR

- Diminished disc capacity
- Bitrate limits at branch points
- May require content restarts
- Multiple video encodesYou forgot some advantages:
Flexibility to do arbitrarily large PiP (i.e. larger than SD)
No impact on available bandwidth
No impact on viewers who are decoding audio offboard (who won't hear the secondary audio for "real" PiP)There are undoubtedly other benefits as well.

Recent reviews like the one excerpted for Cars indicate "fake" PiP is being authored in an extremely effective way. Those reviews alone invalidate your claim that "fake" PiP doesn't count. You may be able to point to very specific use cases for which dual encoding isn't effective or feasible, but the fact remains that for most viewers it allows for an equally satisfying experience as does the use of secondary audio/video hardware.

What's "BD-Java Enhanced" mean?That the disc has been enhanced with BD-J features.

Let us know when a BD title supports dynamically swappable, movable primary and secondary video streams, resizing them, with variable transparency, all in one title. (See Bandai's Freedom HD DVD discs)

*That* is PiP. Not some hard-coded video insert reminiscent of the video insertions used to stick someone signing for the hearing impaired into a corner of the screen :)Fine, you apparently would rather spend more time tweaking where and how your PiP window appears than actually focusing on the content. Your views certainly don't represent the mainstream (especially if you can only point to one set of discs which actually support those features). I trust the director to present the PiP information to me in an aesthetically pleasing way where I don't have to do the work.

How does the BDA intend to answer the DL and TL Twin that HD DVD will be putting out next year?Blu-ray studios haven't shown much interest in combo discs even thought the concept has been demonstrated, so I'm not sure why the BDA would feel compelled to respond to these.

ABR of 15Mbps is now "reasonably high" and 17GB should cover it all?? That runs just a tad contrary to what I like to affectionately refer to as the popular "blu-book estimates." :confused:Fine, I just used a fairly arbitrary figure. The same theory holds for bitrate numbers up into the mid-20's, you're still unlikely to blow your capacity budget by use of dual-encoding for a portion of the main feature.

How many 'Fake PiP' titles are authored using seamless branching? Yup, none.In addition to Cars and Ratatouille already mentioned, Hairspray (and presumably the other upcoming NLE titles) uses PiP with seamless branching, as will Terminator 3 from Warner (I'm told).
As far as the original Warner PiP, that's fine. They *chose* to do it that way, it wasn't a limitation of the Format like it is on Blu-ray. :)The consumer doesn't care "why", the point is PiP on either format can be fully-implemented or minimally-implemented. The presence of secondary A/V decoding certainly doesn't guarantee a better user experience.

Blu-ray studios haven't shown much interest in combo discs even thought the concept has been demonstrated, so I'm not sure why the BDA would feel compelled to respond to these.Hm, last time I checked one of the main proponents of the HD DVD combo format was still a Blu-ray studio. Are you trying to tell us something here? :eek: ;)

Fine, you apparently would rather spend more time tweaking where and how your PiP window appears than actually focusing on the content.You are probably right as long as we only look at simple video commentaries. However, I can easily imagine more interesting scenarios, like e.g. switching between different PiP tracks covering different aspects of the movie via a nice user interface a la Transformer's web-enabled viewing mode or Disney's "cine explorer". Not even to talk about PiP content that is downloaded or streamed from the Internet. This is the kind of stuff I would like to see from the new media, not just talking heads in a PiP window doing a commentary.

Blu-ray studios haven't shown much interest in combo discs even thought the concept has been demonstrated, so I'm not sure why the BDA would feel compelled to respond to these.

By 'demonstrated', are you saying that a Blu-ray Combo disc has been prototyped?

In addition to Cars and Ratatouille already mentioned, Hairspray (and presumably the other upcoming NLE titles) uses PiP with seamless branching, as will Terminator 3 from Warner (I'm told).


Thanks!


The consumer doesn't care "why", the point is PiP on either format can be fully-implemented or minimally-implemented. The presence of secondary A/V decoding certainly doesn't guarantee a better user experience.

I'll agree with this if you also agree that the minority cases of higher capacity and bitrate of Blu-ray "certainly doesn't guarantee a better user experience.". :)

Are you saying that a Blu-ray Combo disc has been prototyped?

To my understanding JVC did try to make a Hybrid - and it failed 2X.

And if BD trys a 3rd time - that design MUST be submitted to the DVD Forum for approval because it would have a DVD layer(s).

Fine, I just used a fairly arbitrary figure. The same theory holds for bitrate numbers up into the mid-20's, you're still unlikely to blow your capacity budget by use of dual-encoding for a portion of the main feature.

Fine, but by your account, a 2 Hour movie uses 13.5GB w/o PiP at a reasonably high bitrate of 15mbps. That means that a 3 hour movie would use about 20GB. With HD DVD, that leaves 10GB for Extras, TrueHD, and IME. It sounds like 30GB is, indeed, more than enough space. Thanks for confirming! ;)

And if BD trys a 3rd time - that design MUST be submitted to the DVD Forum for approval because it would have a DVD layer(s).
I don't believe that is true. They could produce the discs and just not use the logo, which no one notices anyway, just like with the non-DVD side of a Dualdisc not having the CD logo.

To my understanding JVC did try to make a Hybrid - and it failed 2X.

And if BD trys a 3rd time - that design MUST be submitted to the DVD Forum for approval because it would have a DVD layer(s).

If it 'failed', it couldn't have been 'demonstrated' though, could it?

IOW: If they tried to demo it and it failed, it would explain why no one had any interest in it.

Talk's statement seems to impy that Blu-ray studios were shown something viable and they had no interest. Something tells me that's not *really* what the case was as my understanding was they could never make Blu-ray combo discs work. :rolleyes:

Fine, you apparently would rather spend more time tweaking where and how your PiP window appears than actually focusing on the content. Your views certainly don't represent the mainstream (especially if you can only point to one set of discs which actually support those features). I trust the director to present the PiP information to me in an aesthetically pleasing way where I don't have to do the work.

Not true that I'm more interested than playing with the window than watching it. For some titles this would be useful, to compare directly a finished scene and a pre-effects or pre-vis PIP. You can do that with Freedom. Most PIP features wouldn't have much use for this, true, but my point is any REAL PIP is dynamic and adjustable on the fly, whether or not this is made us of, something that cannot be supported with dual encodes / burned-in "PIP" at all. Would be cool to do the same with 300 and overlay the greenscreen footage with the finished product, for example. Just because nobody else has done it yet doesn't mean it isn't cool, or useful, in some situations. And the director may make choices about how to present it, and they may be good choices, but what if they wanted to do something like this? They can't choose to on Blu-Ray, because it isn't possible, unless they go to "BonusView" and then it won't even work for many people.

I don't believe that is true. They could produce the discs and just not use the logo, which no one notices anyway, just like with the non-DVD side of a Dualdisc not having the CD logo.

If they attempt to do something like that - please keep in mind that nowhere on the disc, or packaging will they be allowed to use the letters/logo "DVD"

Sure they can call it Bridge Ray or Purple Ray or Hybrid Ray.

I know the BDA/Sony LOVES to give features names like the new "Bonus View" instead of DS PIP or BD- Live instead of Web Enable.

And you have to remember that every single major BDA company (as it pertains to the war) is a member of the DVD Forum. That is probably the LAST place to start a war of the companies. It has already been done with the creation of the BDA. Any further conflicts would be VERY bad for the consumer.

Blu-ray studios haven't shown much interest in combo discs even thought the concept has been demonstrated, so I'm not sure why the BDA would feel compelled to respond to these.

Hi Talk,

Combos and Twin discs make the migration from DVDs to HD easier on the consumer. Surely this is an extremely compelling reason. The importance of this migration aid will become more prominant as the volume of HDM moves into double digit percentages of the DVD mass market.

They also permit using the same disc for in-vehicle viewing as well as a home setting. Since as we know the primary in-vehicle viewing audience is children, I would think that this consumer convenience would certainly represent a compelling reason to Disney.

If indeed the concept was sucessfully demonstrated with Blu-ray, why wouldn't the BDA want to match these advantages inorder to remain competitive with HD DVD as HDM volumes increase?

Thanks.

Larry

Assuming TL51 actually gets used by the studios (given unknowns regarding backward compatibility, replication costs, etc.), that would leave disc durability, bandwidth advantages, and BD-J flexibility as the primary technical differentiators. Which vendors and studios back the format would become a bigger issue for many than the technical differences.

Thanks Talk. You've provided a reasonable analysis, and I agree with some of your points, though my perspective is different.

Regarding how much TL-51 gets used in real life, that's a good question, and only time will tell. My personal feeling is that triple layer discs will be more popular to combine HD DVD with DVD. I would expect to see TL-51 used on very long titles.

I similarly wonder whether web enabled functionality will see much use in BD. Unlike HD DVD, the BD-Live (2.0 profile) will never be a mandatory requirement for players, so will studios bother to develop these features for more than a few BD titles? We've already seen the first HD DVD titles with web enabled functionality come to market. I expect that the first BD titles with these features to come to market about a year after their HD DVD counterparts did.

As for the technology differentiators, I agree that it's unlikely that the average consumer will give any thought to disc durability, bandwidth advantages, and BD-J flexibility. On the plus side, they probably won't give any thought to BD+, BD-ROM mark or region coding either.

I don't believe vendor support will make much of a difference beyond greater advertising visibility. I think that at the end of the day, player pricing, the studios and the actual titles available in either format will probably have the most influence.

It seems that we're left with very few difference between the formats from the average consumers point of view. Mostly different titles available in red vs. blue cases, lowers cost players from Toshiba and Venturer, higher cost players from Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, et al.

There are, of course, the universal players from LG and Samsung, but that won't provide much of an impact, other than giving the consumers the hint that in the future they will see more universal players in the market.

Considering the above, do you still believe that BD can win before universal players drop in price and become common place. If so, how do you see this playing out?

Larry . . .

We now have two HD DVD releases that are bridge only:

1. Freedom 1 & 2 - DL Twin

2. ST-TOS - Combo

:D

If they attempt to do something like that - please keep in mind that nowhere on the disc, or packaging will they be allowed to use the letters/logo "DVD"

Sure they can call it Bridge Ray or Purple Ray or Hybrid Ray.

I know the BDA/Sony LOVES to give features names like the new "Bonus View" instead of DS PIP or BD- Live instead of Web Enable.

And you have to remember that every single major BDA company (as it pertains to the war) is a member of the DVD Forum. That is probably the LAST place to start a war of the companies. It has already been done with the creation of the BDA. Any further conflicts would be VERY bad for the consumer.

I believe they could use the term "DVD" if they were referencing the players. So, it could say, "plays in your DVD" player. On the other hand, it could just say, "plays in your video disc" player. People would get the idea. The CD logo has actually been removed from a bunch of discs because the protection schemes (read Sony) make the discs not conform to Redbook, but people still buy them and they still play.

Larry . . .

We now have two HD DVD releases that are bridge only:

1. Freedom 1 & 2 - DL Twin

2. ST-TOS - Combo

:D

Freedom was already released in Japan on DVD only I believe. At least, I think only in Japan ... see the Wiki article for the Freedom Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Project#DVD_release).

But, as far as US release and subtitled release period, yes, only on Twins.

Hi Talk,

Combos and Twin discs make the migration from DVDs to HD easier on the consumer. Surely this is an extremely compelling reason. The importance of this migration aid will become more prominant as the volume of HDM moves into double digit percentages of the DVD mass market.

They also permit using the same disc for in-vehicle viewing as well as a home setting. Since as we know the primary in-vehicle viewing audience is children, I would think that this consumer convenience would certainly represent a compelling reason to Disney.
If indeed the concept was sucessfully demonstrated with Blu-ray, why wouldn't the BDA want to match these advantages inorder to remain competitive with HD DVD as HDM volumes increase?

Thanks.

Larry

I really wish a Disney rep was here to answer these questions. My question is to any Disney rep that may be lurking. Why go with BD when the interactive features are NOW available? And stabilized.

Hm, last time I checked one of the main proponents of the HD DVD combo format was still a Blu-ray studio. Are you trying to tell us something here?Nope, just saying I've never seen any interest within the context of BDA discussion for combo discs. If individual studios are pushing for combos it hasn't bubbled up within the BDA.

You are probably right as long as we only look at simple video commentaries. However, I can easily imagine more interesting scenarios, like e.g. switching between different PiP tracks covering different aspects of the movie via a nice user interface a la Transformer's web-enabled viewing mode or Disney's "cine explorer". Not even to talk about PiP content that is downloaded or streamed from the Internet. This is the kind of stuff I would like to see from the new media, not just talking heads in a PiP window doing a commentary.Fair enough, but the example you use, "Cine Explorer", is done with "fake" PiP, so it would appear that a secondary decoder isn't a necessary component to create a compelling PiP experience.

By 'demonstrated', are you saying that a Blu-ray Combo disc has been prototyped?I have no new information, I simply recall once-upon-a-time work was done on a combo disc. I don't know what constraints led to work (apparently) being dropped.

Combos and Twin discs make the migration from DVDs to HD easier on the consumer. Surely this is an extremely compelling reason. The importance of this migration aid will become more prominant as the volume of HDM moves into double digit percentages of the DVD mass market.It seems from commentary I've seen here that combos are very polarizing - some love them, others hate them, but it appears to me that at least as many dislike them as like them. Perhaps if they weren't priced higher there would be fewer complaints, but I know I dislike dual-sided discs (due to lack of art), so perhaps even with price parity there would be a significant group who'd prefer not to have them. While I agree that combos can provide a nice transition strategy for consumers, they also potentially deprive the studios of revenue (since people who initially bought a disc on a combo wouldn't rebuy it on high-def, whereas if they originally bought a DVD they might rebuy).

I don't want to engage in a debate regarding the merits of combos, I'm simply reporting that I've never heard of any initiative within the BDA to pursue them (whether due to perceived technology hurdles or lack of demand).

It seems from commentary I've seen here that combos are very polarizing - some love them, others hate them, but it appears to me that at least as many dislike them as like them. Perhaps if they weren't priced higher there would be fewer complaints, but I know I dislike dual-sided discs (due to lack of art), so perhaps even with price parity there would be a significant group who'd prefer not to have them. While I agree that combos can provide a nice transition strategy for consumers, they also potentially deprive the studios of revenue (since people who initially bought a disc on a combo wouldn't rebuy it on high-def, whereas if they originally bought a DVD they might rebuy).

I don't want to engage in a debate regarding the merits of combos, I'm simply reporting that I've never heard of any initiative within the BDA to pursue them (whether due to perceived technology hurdles or lack of demand).

Warner combos are the same price now.

I similarly wonder whether web enabled functionality will see much use in BD. Unlike HD DVD, the BD-Live (2.0 profile) will never be a mandatory requirement for players, so will studios bother to develop these features for more than a few BD titles?All discussion I've had with studios is that the answer is emphatically "yes". Regardless of the relative lack of BD Live players today, it's expected that within a generation or two most players will support BD Live, and the PS3 alone would ensure a major portion of the installed base can support network connective upon a BD Live firmware update. Besides, whether the player has mandatory network support or not, nothing compels the consumer to actually enable the connectivity, so with either format the studio has no assurance of an audience.
I don't believe vendor support will make much of a difference beyond greater advertising visibility. I think that at the end of the day, player pricing, the studios and the actual titles available in either format will probably have the most influence.I have a differing viewpoint; I believe consumers see Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Pioneer, Sharp, and other BD players and are more likely to conclude that it's the safe bet in terms of which format to pick. Of course more consumers seem to prefer not to make a bet until a clear winner has emerged, sadly.
Considering the above, do you still believe that BD can win before universal players drop in price and become common place. If so, how do you see this playing out?I don't see universal players succeeding under any circumstances. I think we'll either have one format or no format.

I don't see universal players succeeding under any circumstances. I think we'll either have one format or no format.
Consumers are pretty used the universal idea with A/V devices at this point.
Do you know that all DVD players also play CDs and most of them play MP3s? The vast majority of our customers no longer have a separate CD player and use their DVD player instead. I think it's either HD DVD, uniplayers or DVD at this point. I suspect number 2 is a better choice for you.;)

Nope, just saying I've never seen any interest within the context of BDA discussion for combo discs. If individual studios are pushing for combos it hasn't bubbled up within the BDA.
Well, the fact that you didn't hear about it may have been due to the fact that you were not a board member until this variation was killed.

For 2 years since JVC announced the paper combo design (2004), that capability was front and center in just about every BDA press interview. It was not until last year when the technology was put to bed, due to it not being economical to produce. Indeed, the last word for this came from a Sony executive saying that the concept was not manufacturable.

The issue was simple. One can draw 100 layers on paper for an optical disc. But when it comes to making the discs, you have to maintain an overall level of flatness to read the BD layer. With DVD being deep down below the BD layer, its irregularities telegraph up to BD layer, making the BD process even more difficult to produce.

Also, if I am not mistaken, JVC only showed a three layer process which meant BD-25 only with dual layer DVD. This may have been another reason it was abandoned.

As a funny aside, JVC made combo HD DVDs for us some 9 months before the Sony mention of its demise!

Yes, carefully authored PiP using secondary video can be more flexible than the equivalent using dual encoding. This is irrelevant, however, since a)every issue you raise has been the case on many HD DVD releases, and b)even if PiP is authored to be movable or resizable, how many people actually care about that feature? And however many care about it, an even fewer number will be bothered if it's not available.

I'll repeat again, PiP content can absolutely be authored on most movies using dual encoding in a way which will be entirely satisfactory for the vast majority of viewer and which won't unduly impact disc size/capacity.

You seem to be changing your stance here. Previously you had been making the argument that the differences between real and fake PiP were such to be not materially different to the end user.

Now you finally seem to at least be acknowledging that there are indeed material differences, and instead are suggesting that many people won't care.

The fact that you state earlier that studio maty decide to downplay these issues while the market is largely 1.0 players would seem to indicate that they feel differently about these issues.


You forgot some advantages:
Flexibility to do arbitrarily large PiP (i.e. larger than HD)
No impact on available bandwidth
No impact on viewers who are decoding audio offboard (who won't hear the secondary audio for "real" PiP)There are undoubtedly other benefits as well.

(Did you mean "larger then SD?")

You ignore that the INCLUSION of true PiP doesn't eliminate doing these things as well. Or that you trade the bnandwidth for capacity. Etc...


Recent reviews like the one excerpted for Cars indicate "fake" PiP is being authored in an extremely effective way. Those reviews alone invalidate your claim that "fake" PiP doesn't count. You may be able to point to very specific use cases for which dual encoding isn't effective or feasible, but the fact remains that for most viewers it allows for an equally satisfying experience as does the use of secondary audio/video hardware.

I've never said that seamless branching content could not be effective. I'm suggesting that re-purposing an industry and consumer accepted term to refer to something decidedly different is highly disingenuous.

I ask you again, seeing as how it was not answered previously:

If one of the HD DVD titles that currently fits on a SL 15GB disc were re-released on a DL 30GB with a secondary encode containing a 720p PiP image burned into it, would you agree that HD DVD supports HD PiP?


(Note: the answer to this question is NOT "Sure, and BD could advertise that more effectively with higher capacity")

That the disc has been enhanced with BD-J features.

Oh, OK. So there is no "Enhanced" BD-J.

Thanks.

Fine, you apparently would rather spend more time tweaking where and how your PiP window appears than actually focusing on the content. Your views certainly don't represent the mainstream (especially if you can only point to one set of discs which actually support those features). I trust the director to present the PiP information to me in an aesthetically pleasing way where I don't have to do the work.

You are changing your stance here again Talk. I'm quoting you earlier regarding there being "no meaningful difference" between the two when you said:

Second of all, "unable to perceive a meaningful difference" means it's the same experience.

Now that it's NOT the same experience you instead rather condescendingly reply to BioSehnsucht's real world example.

You are probably right as long as we only look at simple video commentaries. However, I can easily imagine more interesting scenarios, like e.g. switching between different PiP tracks covering different aspects of the movie via a nice user interface a la Transformer's web-enabled viewing mode or Disney's "cine explorer". Not even to talk about PiP content that is downloaded or streamed from the Internet. This is the kind of stuff I would like to see from the new media, not just talking heads in a PiP window doing a commentary.

Indeed. Projecting interest in "next gen" techniques using "last gen" capabilities as your metric seems only to be a useful argument while the capability handicap exists.

All discussion I've had with studios is that the answer is emphatically "yes". Regardless of the relative lack of BD Live players today, it's expected that within a generation or two most players will support BD Live, and the PS3 alone would ensure a major portion of the installed base can support network connective upon a BD Live firmware update. Besides, whether the player has mandatory network support or not, nothing compels the consumer to actually enable the connectivity, so with either format the studio has no assurance of an audience.


Can you define "generation"?

Is your "most" predicated on a possible PS3 update, as your post implies?

Nobody seems to have wanted to tackle this one:

What happens when a BD author wants to use branching for another purpose (i.e. extra scenes for a director's cut), AND has secondary PiP content?

- Does he have to now have FOUR versions of the video (primary, Primary+FPiP, branched-content, branched-content+FPiP)?
- Can you have that many branches?
- What does THAT do to your overall capacity?

Given that a Director's cut seems the IDEAL place for additional PiP comentary, it would seem that this is another facet of fake PiP that requres the author or end usr to compromise WRT the expected capability of "real" PiP.

Nobody seems to have wanted to tackle this one:

What happens when a BD author wants to use branching for another purpose (i.e. extra scenes for a director's cut), AND has secondary PiP content?

- Does he have to now have FOUR versions of the video (primary, Primary+FPiP, branched-content, branched-content+FPiP)?
- Can you have that many branches?
- What does THAT do to your overall capacity?

Given that a Director's cut seems the IDEAL place for additional PiP comentary, it would seem that this is another facet of fake PiP that requres the author or end usr to compromise WRT the expected capability of "real" PiP.

Boy, you are mean! :p I thought I was mean! But you... you are meaner than mean. I'll have to invent a word for you: tetraceous! :p
I pity those who will buy an used car from you! :p
LOLOLOL

snip........
I don't see universal players succeeding under any circumstances. I think we'll either have one format or no format.

Ok, I find this topic very interesting, and would like to better understand your position on the subject. Do you feel this way because you think:

1. At current course and speed, the format war will have a winner in the next 14 months?
2. It will take universal players longer than 14 months to get below $400 list?
3. There will be a studio support shake up in the next 14 months that ends this?
4. If there is no winner in the next 14 months consumers decide to stick with DVD?

I'm using 14 months as my window as that puts us at CES 2009 and a potential 3rd round of universal player announcements.

Fair enough, but the example you use, "Cine Explorer", is done with "fake" PiP, so it would appear that a secondary decoder isn't a necessary component to create a compelling PiP experience.It was meant as an example for a compelling graphical user interface (i.e. the "console" that comes up when you activate it), not the content itself. Obviously, things like multiple PiP tracks or downloaded ones are not possible with Blu-ray today.

Boy, you are mean! :p I thought I was mean! But you... you are meaner than mean. I'll have to invent a word for you: tetraceous! :p
I pity those who will buy an used car from you! :p
LOLOLOL

Sorry, wasn't trying to be mean. :o

My point in wanting to know these details is that Talk as a BD insider is making some pretty strong assertions regarding some of these features, many of which folks at an AV Science forum may question. I'm interested in technical accuracy...

It seems from commentary I've seen here that combos are very polarizing - some love them, others hate them, but it appears to me that at least as many dislike them as like them. Perhaps if they weren't priced higher there would be fewer complaints, but I know I dislike dual-sided discs (due to lack of art), so perhaps even with price parity there would be a significant group who'd prefer not to have them. While I agree that combos can provide a nice transition strategy for consumers, they also potentially deprive the studios of revenue (since people who initially bought a disc on a combo wouldn't rebuy it on high-def, whereas if they originally bought a DVD they might rebuy).

I don't want to engage in a debate regarding the merits of combos, I'm simply reporting that I've never heard of any initiative within the BDA to pursue them (whether due to perceived technology hurdles or lack of demand).

Hi Talk,

Thanks very much for the response.

You are of course free to refrain from any additional responses, but nevertheless I would like to discuss your comments.

First, your dislike of dual-sided Combo discs due to the lack of "art" seems a bit short-sighted in view of the added convenience to the consumer that they provide. Twin discs provide the same conveniences as Combo discs, and can provide for "art" if that is really important to the art-loving segment of the consumer market.

With regard to the potential loss of revenue, Combos really don't prevent the practice of double dipping. I'm sure most of us after owning some standard DVDs, have purchased the Combo disc versions, particularly because that was the only HD content available at the time. As you point out much of the complaints voiced about with Combos is due to pricing and that can be remedied as the volume of HDM increases.

In addition, Combos/Twin discs also don't necessarily result in a loss of revenue if the pricing is carefully balanced with demand. The whole point of offering HDM in the first place is the studios' desire to increase revenue by inducing consumers to pay more by offering a product that is seen as providing a superior experience while retaining the convenience of DVDs. If the pricing of Combo/Twin discs were to decrease there would be a pricepoint where the consumers' current inertia to buy HDM would be overcome resulting in significantly greater demand and more revenue. (This strategy of course also requires the continuation of aggressively priced players.)

Finally, the Combos/Twin discs transistion strategy potentially provides a means of speeding the end of the format war by forcing an increase in HD DVD demand. Currently if demand for HDM were to approach the DVD mass market volumes, HD DVD would be in a much better position with regard to production capacity than Blu-ray. Blu-ray of course expects a slow adoption of HDM and believes that they have ample time to add production capacity. That might be true if adoption were to remain slow. However, as I mentioned, HD DVD has the means of forcing HD DVD adoption by phasing down the volume of DVDs while phasing up the volume of Combo/Twin discs.

As HDM makes inroads into the DVD mass market, the economies of scale improve for Combo/Twins discs, further facilitating the pricing needed to make a transistion from DVD to HD DVD.

Even if Blu-ray were to take steps to counter this forced demand strategy, say bundling DVDs with Blu-ray discs, they are still limited in their production capacity. So even if Blu-ray discs sales quickly ramped up the remaining Blu-ray exclusive studios would start competing for now scarce production capacity. Defections to HD DVD would surely follow.

Regardless of whether or not Blu-ray had a feasible version of its own Combo/Twin, if it were used to force adoption of Blu-ray, Blu-ray wouldn't have adequate production capacity to support the resulting demand. So Combos are a "Catch-22" situation for Blu-ray.

Larry

Combos and Twin discs make the migration from DVDs to HD easier on the consumer. Surely this is an extremely compelling reason. The importance of this migration aid will become more prominant as the volume of HDM moves into double digit percentages of the DVD mass market.

They also permit using the same disc for in-vehicle viewing as well as a home setting. Since as we know the primary in-vehicle viewing audience is children, I would think that this consumer convenience would certainly represent a compelling reason to Disney.


Hi,

The recent Disney vote in the DVD Steering Meeting reenforces my previous point:

Disney Votes for 51GB HD DVD Media Approval.
Blu-Ray Backer Approves New HD DVD Standard (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20071119150942_Disney_Votes_for_51GB_HD_DVD_Media_Approval.h tml)


At the Steering Committee meeting in September Walt Disney Home Entertainment voted for triple layer twin-format HD DVD as well as triple layer HD DVD 51GB revision 1.9 preliminary media standards, according to the notes from the event available at the DVD Forum.



Walt Disney Home Entertainment, a major Hollywood studio and one of the strongest backers of Blu-ray disc format, voted for approval of a preliminary specification of 51GB triple-layer HD DVD media, just like all the backers of HD DVD and unlike some other backers of Blu-ray Association within the DVD Forum, who typically abstain in HD DVD-related votes.


Larry

You seem to be changing your stance here. Previously you had been making the argument that the differences between real and fake PiP were such to be not materially different to the end user.I continue to maintain that for the vast majority of content the differences are not of consequence to the average user. I have agreed that for a very select number of titles like 300 or very very long titles dual-encoded PiP will not provide as satisfactory an experience as will secondary video-based PiP.
Did you mean "larger then SD?")Yes.
I ask you again, seeing as how it was not answered previously:

If one of the HD DVD titles that currently fits on a SL 15GB disc were re-released on a DL 30GB with a secondary encode containing a 720p PiP image burned into it, would you agree that HD DVD supports HD PiP?
I would say the terms "SD PiP" and "HD PiP" are ambiguous. The proper terminology would be "HD secondary video". If you insist on using the term "HD PiP" I'd say your statement could be considered correct.
Can you define "generation"?Player model. I.e. the Panasonic DMP-BD30 is current generation; I'd expect the model which replaces the 30 or the one after that to have BD Live. Same for the other current models.
Is your "most" predicated on a possible PS3 update, as your post implies?No, "most" as measured by different models, i.e. by next summer or fall most current player models will support BD Live.

Ok, I find this topic very interesting, and would like to better understand your position on the subject. Do you feel this way because you think:

1. At current course and speed, the format war will have a winner in the next 14 months?
2. It will take universal players longer than 14 months to get below $400 list?
3. There will be a studio support shake up in the next 14 months that ends this?
4. If there is no winner in the next 14 months consumers decide to stick with DVD?I think the cost and complexity of universal machines will prevent consumer adoption at a rate which allows them to succeed. It didn't work for SACD / DVD Audio and I don't think it'll work for Blu-ray / HD DVD.[/QUOTE] It also doesn't solve the problem of shelf space or costs for studios in authoring to two formats (should they want to address the full market).

Thanks very much for the response.

You are of course free to refrain from any additional responses, but nevertheless I would like to discuss your comments.As I said, I don't care to debate the merits of combo discs. There is certainly some benefit, but it's not clear to me that the benefit isn't outweighed by the drawbacks. I will comment on two of your points, however:
First, your dislike of dual-sided Combo discs due to the lack of "art" seems a bit short-sighted in view of the added convenience to the consumer that they provide.I'm merely saying that when I get a dual-sided disc I never know which side is supposed to go up, and it's much harder to identify the disc when I pull it out of the player. I'm not making a statement regarding the relative value of "art" vs dual-format.
Regardless of whether or not Blu-ray had a feasible version of its own Combo/Twin, if it were used to force adoption of Blu-ray, Blu-ray wouldn't have adequate production capacity to support the resulting demand.I've seen no evidence that Blu-ray is in any way capacity-constrained, or couldn't grow production capacity to ramp with demand.

I'm merely saying that when I get a dual-sided disc I never know which side is supposed to go up, and it's much harder to identify the disc when I pull it out of the player. I'm not making a statement regarding the relative value of "art" vs dual-format.

Getting a little old :) ? I have to put on my reading glasses and turn up the lights to read the small print. :o

Just so everyone knows - concerning Disney's voting yes for the TL Twin and the TL51 at the 9/12 SCM . . . all we have are the minutes of the meeting. There has not been a single word on their reason why they were the only BDA company who did not abstain.

Unless I see a quoted executive from Disney explain it - as far as i am concerned, any answer/post is speculation and nothing more.

Just so everyone knows - concerning Disney's voting yes for the TL Twin and the TL51 at the 9/12 SCM . . . all we have are the minutes of the meeting. There has not been a single word on their reason why they were the only BDA company who did not abstain.

Unless I see a quoted executive from Disney explain it - as far as i am concerned, any answer/post is speculation and nothing more.

man, i have to comment not on your post but on your post count...over 7100 posts since Feb 2007??? WOW!!! you've definitely had too much ice cream ;)

Warner combos are the same price now.
Oceans 13 HD DVD combo list $39.99, Blu-ray list $35.99.

man, i have to comment not on your post but on your post count...over 7100 posts since Feb 2007??? WOW!!! you've definitely had too much ice cream ;)

Retired! Lots of time on my hands.:D

Just so everyone knows - concerning Disney's voting yes for the TL Twin and the TL51 at the 9/12 SCM . . . all we have are the minutes of the meeting. There has not been a single word on their reason why they were the only BDA company who did not abstain.

Unless I see a quoted executive from Disney explain it - as far as i am concerned, any answer/post is speculation and nothing more.


If memory serves me right, in the 1st insider thread, an insider had said that Disney always votes on DVD Forum matters. Nothing new with the way they voted.
Thier vote will get spun around quite a bit with pure speculation.

Oceans 13 HD DVD combo list $39.99, Blu-ray list $35.99.

That's just list price. Check out the prices from a couple of the usual online sources for this title and the three movie box sets.

Just so everyone knows - concerning Disney's voting yes for the TL Twin and the TL51 at the 9/12 SCM . . . all we have are the minutes of the meeting. There has not been a single word on their reason why they were the only BDA company who did not abstain.

Unless I see a quoted executive from Disney explain it - as far as i am concerned, any answer/post is speculation and nothing more.

Disney usually does vote on HD DVD issues. They're the only BD company that does and Amir holds them in high regard.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10125797&postcount=3041

I for one, always put Disney in a different class than other BD companies. They stand out as one of the few BD companies who have taken the participation in DVD Forum and HD DVD format making seriously. They vote on all the issues instead of abstaining. They worked hand in hand with the rest of us to create the HD DVD interactivity spec. They pushed strongly to make those and audio features mandatory. And they gave the best look at VC-1 than any BD studio. We don't see eye to eye when we step out of the forum to be sure in the optical formats, but share a certain level of respect for each other still.

Disney usually does vote on HD DVD issues. They're the only BD company that does and Amir holds them in high regard.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10125797&postcount=3041


I for one, always put Disney in a different class than other BD companies. They stand out as one of the few BD companies who have taken the participation in DVD Forum and HD DVD format making seriously. They vote on all the issues instead of abstaining. They worked hand in hand with the rest of us to create the HD DVD interactivity spec. They pushed strongly to make those and audio features mandatory. And they gave the best look at VC-1 than any BD studio. We don't see eye to eye when we step out of the forum to be sure in the optical formats, but share a certain level of respect for each other still.


Thanks for the perspective, but it's also interesting to note that they voted for the two specifications.

Perhaps Amir can expand on this. Would there be any ramifications, legal or otherwise, if a Blu-ray exclusive studio voted against a proposed HD DVD feature?

If not, why would most Blu-ray exclusive studios abstain from voting rather than voting NO?

Thanks.

Larry

I think the cost and complexity of universal machines will prevent consumer adoption at a rate which allows them to succeed. It didn't work for SACD / DVD Audio and I don't think it'll work for Blu-ray / HD DVD. It also doesn't solve the problem of shelf space or costs for studios in authoring to two formats (should they want to address the full market).


SACD/DVD-A universal players didn't fail because of player cost/complexity.

They failed first and foremost because both formats were crippled by anti-consumer DRM. This necessitated many confusing hoops for the consumers to go through with too little benefit perceived.

A lesson the HDM industry should do well to remember.

They failed first and foremost because both formats were crippled by anti-consumer DRM. This necessitated many confusing hoops for the consumers to go through with too little benefit perceived.


That's absurd. They failed because there was no perceived value to hi-res multichannel music in a marketplace that at the time of the rollout was quickly becoming dominated by low-res MP3s and portable players like the iPod. SACD and DVD-A were never going to go beyond being niche products, the way vinyl still is among audio enthusiasts.

Yes, the need for multiple analog cables to connect a player was idiotic, but that's an almost immaterial point compared to the seismic changes going on in the marketplace at the time.

That's absurd. They failed because there was no perceived value to hi-res multichannel music in a marketplace that at the time of the rollout was quickly becoming dominated by low-res MP3s and portable players like the iPod. SACD and DVD-A were never going to go beyond being niche products, the way vinyl still is among audio enthusiasts.
Well, he is kind of right :). As you said, the MP3 revolution was upon us at the time. So to introduce two formats, with one, SACD, by contract stipulating no playback let alone rip on the PC, was a death nail (DVD-A was playable but not rippable). In other words, they took away a big convenience, and gave back a tiny bit of quality improvement (some would say zero improvement in the eyes of typical customer). To consumers, that was the wrong trade off especially when there was not much available in the formats, and the cost was higher than even the CD.

That's absurd. They failed because there was no perceived value to hi-res multichannel music in a marketplace that at the time of the rollout was quickly becoming dominated by low-res MP3s and portable players like the iPod. SACD and DVD-A were never going to go beyond being niche products, the way vinyl still is among audio enthusiasts.

Yes, the need for multiple analog cables to connect a player was idiotic, but that's an almost immaterial point compared to the seismic changes going on in the marketplace at the time.

I don't think our two positions are as different as you might think. If multi-channel music was as accessible as 2-channel was and rippable (a mostly illegal practice at the time, btw), perhaps it would have survived.

The fact that we had two competing formats with crippling DRM are far more relevant to their failure in the marketplace than the cost/complexity of building a universal player to play both of them back. That's my core point.

In other words, a universal player is always claimed to be too expensive/complex to make when often the issue is simply stubbornness and ego.

I think even the most ardent BD supporter would be hard-pressed to explain how a $100 HD-DVD player's hardware/software couldn't have easily been added to every BD player on the market. It's not done (at least at a low cost) simply out of wanting their format (and only their format) to succeed. Cost and complexity have zero to do with it.

I continue to maintain that for the vast majority of content the differences are not of consequence to the average user. I have agreed that for a very select number of titles like 300 or very very long titles dual-encoded PiP will not provide as satisfactory an experience as will secondary video-based PiP.
Yes.
I would say the terms "SD PiP" and "HD PiP" are ambiguous. The proper terminology would be "HD secondary video". If you insist on using the term "HD PiP" I'd say your statement could be considered correct.
Player model. I.e. the Panasonic DMP-BD30 is current generation; I'd expect the model which replaces the 30 or the one after that to have BD Live. Same for the other current models.
No, "most" as measured by different models, i.e. by next summer or fall most current player models will support BD Live.

I see my response to this last night was deleted. :mad:

Suffice it to say, a brief search indicates that you certainly used/discussed "HD PiP" unambiguously all the time it was believed to be part of the 1.1 spec. Now it isn't?

If you think it's OK for a platform to be billed as "HD PiP" capable via a 720 window burned in to a secondary stream as long as its a similar experience to the end user, then I ask where does the "marketecture" end?

If a BD title contained a BD-J applet simulating a download progress indicator then branched to a secondary video stream on the disc, would it be OK to call that platform capable of "content download", as long as it felt the same to an end user REALLY downloading the same content online?

Your definition of generations makes sense. If it's current, how many preceded it. I'd guess one?

So by "most" platforms will be 1.1 soon... is that "most" for sale then, or "most" installed accounting for disc attaches?

I don't think our two positions are as different as you might think. If multi-channel music was as accessible as 2-channel was and rippable (a mostly illegal practice at the time, btw), perhaps it would have survived.

The fact that we had two competing formats with crippling DRM are far more relevant to their failure in the marketplace than the cost/complexity of building a universal player to play both of them back. That's my core point.

In other words, a universal player is always claimed to be too expensive/complex to make when often the issue is simply stubbornness and ego.

I think even the most ardent BD supporter would be hard-pressed to explain how a $100 HD-DVD player's hardware/software couldn't have easily been added to every BD player on the market. It's not done (at least at a low cost) simply out of wanting their format (and only their format) to succeed. Cost and complexity have zero to do with it.

very well said on all counts...

most notably, dvd-a and sacd didn't fail b/c of a "format war" ...

I don't think our two positions are as different as you might think. If multi-channel music was as accessible as 2-channel was and rippable (a mostly illegal practice at the time, btw), perhaps it would have survived.

The fact that we had two competing formats with crippling DRM are far more relevant to their failure in the marketplace than the cost/complexity of building a universal player to play both of them back. That's my core point.

In other words, a universal player is always claimed to be too expensive/complex to make when often the issue is simply stubbornness and ego.

I think even the most ardent BD supporter would be hard-pressed to explain how a $100 HD-DVD player's hardware/software couldn't have easily been added to every BD player on the market. It's not done (at least at a low cost) simply out of wanting their format (and only their format) to succeed. Cost and complexity have zero to do with it.

OK, now that you (and Amir) have clarified a bit, I see you point a little better. I also think higher software costs and a difficulty in finding discs had something to do with it as well, again, in a time when free or very inexpensive downloads were becoming the norm.

Eh, my bad. I meant to link to the thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11387021#post11387021), as a whole, and not just the post.

The good stuff is a couple pages in. I hope you continue to be amused... I live to please, you know.;)


Richard: Did you simply opt to not respond to this once you saw the thread?

Would there be any ramifications, legal or otherwise, if a Blu-ray exclusive studio voted against a proposed HD DVD feature?(I'm assuming you're referring to BDA companies, not just studios.) No, unless someone could prove that the Blu-ray companies were acting as a group rather than independently, in which case there could be anti-trust considerations.
If not, why would most Blu-ray exclusive studios abstain from voting rather than voting NO?In my experience with multiple standards bodies Japanese companies often vote "abstain" when they really mean "no" on issues which are clearly going to pass.

Suffice it to say, a brief search indicates that you certainly used/discussed "HD PiP" unambiguously all the time it was believed to be part of the 1.1 spec. Now it isn't?I did, in part because at that point the distinction between PiP and secondary video had not been discussed much.
If you think it's OK for a platform to be billed as "HD PiP" capable via a 720 window burned in to a secondary stream as long as its a similar experience to the end user, then I ask where does the "marketecture" end?I said I don't think it's the proper way to refer to it, but that technically it's correct. I certainly don't care for the practice.
Your definition of generations makes sense. If it's current, how many preceded it. I'd guess one?For most manufacturers, yes.
So by "most" platforms will be 1.1 soon... is that "most" for sale then, or "most" installed accounting for disc attaches?I'm saying most new models introduced in the "next" generation will have network support. I consider the current generation to be those players released post Oct 31st, i.e. the Panasonic DMP-BD30 and other upcoming players. The next generation, which I'd guess would be players introduced spring/early summer, I expect will be predominantly network-capable. And please don't get all nit-picky on me here with regards to generations, there's obviously no rigid definition, since each vendor has their own release cycle one may release a player next Fall which compares more to current players than others which will be introduced in the same timeframe. My definition of "most" has no relationship with sales volume or attach rates, I'm referring strictly to distinct models of players.

I did, in part because at that point the distinction between PiP and secondary video had not been discussed much.
I said I don't think it's the proper way to refer to it, but that technically it's correct. I certainly don't care for the practice.
For most manufacturers, yes.
I'm saying most new models introduced in the "next" generation will have network support. I consider the current generation to be those players released post Oct 31st, i.e. the Panasonic DMP-BD30 and other upcoming players. The next generation, which I'd guess would be players introduced spring/early summer, I expect will be predominantly network-capable. And please don't get all nit-picky on me here with regards to generations, there's obviously no rigid definition, since each vendor has their own release cycle one may release a player next Fall which compares more to current players than others which will be introduced in the same timeframe. My definition of "most" has no relationship with sales volume or attach rates, I'm referring strictly to distinct models of players.


Would you mind adressing this question you edited out of your reply to me?

If a BD title contained a BD-J applet simulating a download progress indicator then branched to a secondary video stream on the disc, would it be OK to call that platform capable of "content download", as long as it felt the same to an end user REALLY downloading the same content online?


Thanks.

If a BD title contained a BD-J applet simulating a download progress indicator then branched to a secondary video stream on the disc, would it be OK to call that platform capable of "content download", as long as it felt the same to an end user REALLY downloading the same content online?Of course not, there is no content download (which clearly implies networked content). Using encoded PiP is still a picture-in-picture; whether it supports the flexibility of resizing or moving the window (as might be enabled by use of secondary video hardware) doesn't change the fact that it's still PiP.

But Talk . . when you use "the ends justify the means" . . .aren't you giving up a "talking point" . . greater storage? For all and intents and purposes - all the current BD PIP movies are really 25GB movies . . done twice.

Have the studios (BDA) been selective based on run time? Why did they choose those particular tiltles to get PIP?

But Talk . . when you use "the ends justify the means" . . .aren't you giving up a "talking point" . . greater storage? For all and intents and purposes - all the current BD PIP movies are really 25GB movies . . done twice. Not the case. If you have PiP during the entire movie then you will double the encode size, but having it during the whole movie generally only makes sense for something like 300 where you may want to do a comparison at any given moment. And even then you generally don't have 25GB of movie, you have something less than that with additional space used for extras. Most movies (dramas, comedies, etc.) will have interesting moments for PiP, but most of the time will not require PiP (or may use still photos or animation which doesn't require additional encoding since it can be overlaid). It's not all that compelling to watch the cast sitting around a table talking about the movie, for the most part you want to see what they are referring to, perhaps with an occasional cut-in for a director's expression or an actor's imitation of something or such. Movies like Cars with Cine-Explore demonstrate this - there's a variety of things going on, only a few of which are actually video. So in reality the percentage of the movie which requires dual encoding might be 25% or less, which won't have an impact on total capacity requirements for all but the longest of movies.

(I'm assuming you're referring to BDA companies, not just studios.) No, unless someone could prove that the Blu-ray companies were acting as a group rather than independently, in which case there could be anti-trust considerations.
In my experience with multiple standards bodies Japanese companies often vote "abstain" when they really mean "no" on issues which are clearly going to pass.

Weren't there some attempts to block standards at one point? I thought I saw a posting from an Insider to that effect awhile back.

Of course not, there is no content download (which clearly implies networked content). Using encoded PiP is still a picture-in-picture; whether it supports the flexibility of resizing or moving the window (as might be enabled by use of secondary video hardware) doesn't change the fact that it's still PiP.

*sigh*

It certanly appears there's a degree of "situational (dis)honesty" from the BDA front that's directly tied the degree to which they feel the platform will be shed in a bad light. More so than I normally expect from corporations.

The turnabout visible here to anybody who wants to search for how "HD PiP" was presented by specific BD insiders berfore, and after, it was pointed out they were wrong about it's inclusion in the BD 1.1 profile is enlightening.

At this point, I guess that there's no sense beating it any further. I hope people are listening to the BD message with a discerning ear.

I did, in part because at that point the distinction between PiP and secondary video had not been discussed much.
I said I don't think it's the proper way to refer to it, but that technically it's correct. I certainly don't care for the practice.
For most manufacturers, yes.
I'm saying most new models introduced in the "next" generation will have network support. I consider the current generation to be those players released post Oct 31st, i.e. the Panasonic DMP-BD30 and other upcoming players. The next generation, which I'd guess would be players introduced spring/early summer, I expect will be predominantly network-capable. And please don't get all nit-picky on me here with regards to generations, there's obviously no rigid definition, since each vendor has their own release cycle one may release a player next Fall which compares more to current players than others which will be introduced in the same timeframe. My definition of "most" has no relationship with sales volume or attach rates, I'm referring strictly to distinct models of players.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by GmanAVS
"Same exact experience here (even the kids noticed the improved image) using a XA2 fw 2.7 @24fps -> Panasonic 50pz700u viewing at 5 ft (we sat on the cofee table to view it over & over .... Karaoke!)

New VC-1 encode? Higher bit rate? Vodoo magic, what?"

Gman
"The extras on Shrek 3 are in AVC, so that must be what makes the difference ..."

These posts rate near the top in ironic funniness!;) I almost bought it used for $18 today, but I can't stand the social engineering the writers throw in your face. Glad I passed it up. Well I think AVC looks better too! (Surfs-Up being the exception).

Weren't there some attempts to block standards at one point? I thought I saw a posting from an Insider to that effect awhile back.Any attempts by a group of companies to block something would also probably be an anti-trust violation. You may be recalling Amir's posts that the BDA member companies' tendency to abstain on HD DVD-related issues prevented then from passing the DVD Forum Steering Committee because there weren't enough "yes" votes, so more companies were added.

Any attempts by a group of companies to block something would also probably be an anti-trust violation. You may be recalling Amir's posts that the BDA member companies' tendency to abstain on HD DVD-related issues prevented then from passing the DVD Forum Steering Committee because there weren't enough "yes" votes, so more companies were added.
And the rules further changed so that abstain, does not mean NO. BDA companies still hold majority even with MS and Disney joining so this was a necessary step to get past the blockade.

Originally Posted by GmanAVS
"Same exact experience here (even the kids noticed the improved image) using a XA2 fw 2.7 @24fps -> Panasonic 50pz700u viewing at 5 ft (we sat on the cofee table to view it over & over .... Karaoke!)

New VC-1 encode? Higher bit rate? Vodoo magic, what?"

Gman
"The extras on Shrek 3 are in AVC, so that must be what makes the difference ..."

These posts rate near the top in ironic funniness!;) I almost bought it used for $18 today, but I can't stand the social engineering the writers throw in your face. Glad I passed it up. Well I think AVC looks better too! (Surfs-Up being the exception).

Thank you for the clarification!

Kudos to AVC, spectacular job with animation :)

For the record, the feature is VC-1 and some of the bonus features are AVC. The VC-1 presentation is outstanding, and may be the best that the VC-1 encode has ever looked.

From Alan Gouger:
"I have a question for those involved behind the scene.

What is with all the Edge Enhancement?

I’ve asked this before but it was never address.
Universal is the worst culprit releasing some of the worst HD transfers on the planet.
Not only are there more and more people complaining on this forum but Review sites are starting to complain and are commenting on it in their reviews.

Id like to see this issue address as it is ruining the HD experience and the practice of using EE should have been left behind with NTSC DVDs.
According to Joe Kane the authoring is being done on monitors to small to notice the EE and Banding that the consumer clearly sees. He wants this to change and the use of larger screens to be used.
Any input from those in the know is appreciated.
Thank you !"
---
I wish Alan would have at least described or provided and example of the type of edge enhancement (EE) he is referring too.
Both the lack of and too much sharpening is also a hot topic for digital cameras. The amount of sharpening can be measured. The anti-aliasing filter is usually the main culprit. In a bold stroke of genius one Leica camera has omitted this filter altogether.

In the legacy analog world overdone EE was manifested by a false boost in the luminance potion of the signal before (and sometimes after) a sharp transition. While some still have fond memories of CRTs, the non-defeatable Scanning Velocity Modulation (SVM) in these legacy analog displays was reason enough for others to chuck it and never look back.

EE used to be worse: Take the 2001 release from of the Warner Bros classic Giant. Or any MGM studio release (by the previous owner).
It’s a matter of having up-to-date mastering gear and paying attention to the details. Of course without management support none of this can occur.

Today boosting the apparent sharpness is a lot more sophisticated. The common software based unsharp mask tool allows one to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter and other high frequency roll-offs. The new twist is in the suppression of (traditional EE) halos.

Now too much oversharpening causes the picture to look “brittle” but the crass outlining is largely gone.
The traditional Japanese quality and attention to detail is exhibited in Sony’s transfers. Disney and Pixar have must have enlightened leadership too. Warner is the most improved.

If I had to ask a question it would be this: is there a trend where new sophisticated types of over-sharpening (Alan's EE) are being used to compensate for lower bit rates?
I think there is and I don’t like it one bit. :)

there is a new sticky on EE here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=937873

I believe the answer to the following is probably already here, spread across many posts, but it'd be nice to have all the information in one place.

What is the main reason for each format-exclusive studio being format-exclusive? And I suppose implied in that quetion is another - what might change their minds?

I think it's accepted that Fox are BD-exclusive because they wanted BD+.

What about the others?

Cheers.

Steve W

Originally Posted by GmanAVS
"Same exact experience here (even the kids noticed the improved image) using a XA2 fw 2.7 @24fps -> Panasonic 50pz700u viewing at 5 ft (we sat on the cofee table to view it over & over .... Karaoke!)

New VC-1 encode? Higher bit rate? Vodoo magic, what?"

Gman
"The extras on Shrek 3 are in AVC, so that must be what makes the difference ..."

These posts rate near the top in ironic funniness!;) I almost bought it used for $18 today, but I can't stand the social engineering the writers throw in your face. Glad I passed it up. Well I think AVC looks better too! (Surfs-Up being the exception).

Thank you for the clarification!

Kudos to AVC, spectacular job with animation :)

Hmmm, always conflicting information I fear...


The extras on Shrek 3 are in AVC, so that must be what makes the difference ...
Much more likely it's a different source processing chain.

What is the main reason for each format-exclusive studio being format-exclusive? And I suppose implied in that quetion is another - what might change their minds?What, you expect the insiders to just come here and say "[X] is why [studio] is exclusive to my format, but on this public board with insiders from another format, I'm going to tell you the perfect way to get them to defect to the format I'm against." Really, how stupid do you think they are?

What, you expect the insiders to just come here and say "[X] is why [studio] is exclusive to my format, but on this public board with insiders from another format, I'm going to tell you the perfect way to get them to defect to the format I'm against." Really, how stupid do you think they are?

Do you really want me to answer that question? :D

Steve W

Not the case. If you have PiP during the entire movie then you will double the encode size, but having it during the whole movie generally only makes sense for something like 300 where you may want to do a comparison at any given moment. And even then you generally don't have 25GB of movie, you have something less than that with additional space used for extras. Most movies (dramas, comedies, etc.) will have interesting moments for PiP, but most of the time will not require PiP (or may use still photos or animation which doesn't require additional encoding since it can be overlaid). It's not all that compelling to watch the cast sitting around a table talking about the movie, for the most part you want to see what they are referring to, perhaps with an occasional cut-in for a director's expression or an actor's imitation of something or such. Movies like Cars with Cine-Explore demonstrate this - there's a variety of things going on, only a few of which are actually video. So in reality the percentage of the movie which requires dual encoding might be 25% or less, which won't have an impact on total capacity requirements for all but the longest of movies.

PLease explain why a second 300 with the PiP embedded wouldn't take the same amount or more space than the version without. It cold take even more because the PiP video is very different from the main movie. Also, are you saying that the "PiP" can be done with branching (not seamless)?

PLease explain why a second 300 with the PiP embedded wouldn't take the same amount or more space than the version without.

Not to speak for Talk, but that's not what he said. He said a movie such as 300 with a full-length PiP feature would need a second full-length encode that would take up just as much space as the original.

However, he went on to say that most movies only benefit from PiP in certain scenes. These full-resolution scenes with a burned in "PiP" window would be encoded separately and then seamlessly swapped in and out, replacing the original non-PiP version only when it needed to. Since these additional scenes only represent a portion of the movie's runtime (he estimated 25% or less), they wouldn't take up as much disc space.

While I would love to be able to read into Disney voting as a sign of something... anything hahaa. I seem to remember it being commented on that they have always voted on the HD DVD topics and never or rarely abstained.

If memory serves then they are simply being DVD forum members in good standing, participating and covering all the angles a littel just in case.

Do I remember correctly?

Cheers,

Richard

What is the main reason for each format-exclusive studio being format-exclusive?Fox is known to prefer the additional copy protection technologies which Blu-ray offers. Disney has been said to like the additional capacity. Both studios have gone on record as saying they think a single format will get far more consumer adoption than the sum of two competing formats, which is another reason for not going neutral.

Not to speak for Talk, but that's not what he said. He said a movie such as 300 with a full-length PiP feature would need a second full-length encode that would take up just as much space as the original.

However, he went on to say that most movies only benefit from PiP in certain scenes. These full-resolution scenes with a burned in "PiP" window would be encoded separately and then seamlessly swapped in and out, replacing the original non-PiP version only when it needed to. Since these additional scenes only represent a portion of the movie's runtime (he estimated 25% or less), they wouldn't take up as much disc space.Exactly what I would have (and did!) say - thanks!

- Talk

Exactly what I would have (and did!) say - thanks!

- Talk

You said something completely different, and I can only read what you wrote. Please try to be clearer in the future.

You said something completely different, and I can only read what you wrote. Please try to be clearer in the future.Calam clearly restated what I intended, so I was clear enough for at least one person...

Fox is known to prefer the additional copy protection technologies which Blu-ray offers. Disney has been said to like the additional capacity. Both studios have gone on record as saying they think a single format will get far more consumer adoption than the sum of two competing formats, which is another reason for not going neutral.

Well it seems that fox is pretty much settled but what about Disney , seems to me that if cpacity becomes moot and the sales advantage is on the other foot they will jump to hd dvd exclusive . After all that would be the fastest way to insure one format (going with the one doing the best) though I don't really see that happening , do you ?

You said something completely different, and I can only read what you wrote. Please try to be clearer in the future.

Well, Talk and I have been known to disagree on an issue or two, but Calam's synopsis is what I understood Talk to be stating as well.

If anything, I've found Talk to be one of the more direct and concise posters here.... even if he is wrong on some of those subjects. :p *

* - For the humor-impaired, that was as joke.

Well it seems that fox is pretty much settled but what about Disney , seems to me that if cpacity becomes moot and the sales advantage is on the other foot they will jump to hd dvd exclusive . After all that would be the fastest way to insure one format (going with the one doing the best) though I don't really see that happening , do you ?Blu-ray still has a 2:1 sales advantage. If TL51 works on the installed base of players and if bandwidth is increased (or not perceived by Disney to be a problem) and if replication capacity and costs are feasible and if enough vendors sign on to produce HD DVD that it becomes a sustainable ecosystem than it's feasible to assume Disney might support HD DVD. Even then the PS3 alone virtually guarantees Blu-ray's ongoing customer base, so the argument for going HD DVD exclusive is (in my opinion) much weaker than the argument for going Blu-ray exclusive.

If anything, I've found Talk to be one of the more direct and concise posters here....Happy Thanksgiving, Steve - I appreciate the kind words!

Blu-ray still has a 2:1 sales advantage. If TL51 works on the installed base of players and if bandwidth is increased (or not perceived by Disney to be a problem) and if replication capacity and costs are feasible and if enough vendors sign on to produce HD DVD that it becomes a sustainable ecosystem than it's feasible to assume Disney might support HD DVD.
Interesting point of view. Why do you think none of those "ifs" apply to Warner, Universal and Paramount? Do they make different kind of movies?

Blu-ray still has a 2:1 sales advantage. If TL51 works on the installed base of players and if bandwidth is increased (or not perceived by Disney to be a problem) and if replication capacity and costs are feasible and if enough vendors sign on to produce HD DVD that it becomes a sustainable ecosystem than it's feasible to assume Disney might support HD DVD. Even then the PS3 alone virtually guarantees Blu-ray's ongoing customer base, so the argument for going HD DVD exclusive is (in my opinion) much weaker than the argument for going Blu-ray exclusive.

Can I ask why you think a games console for which gamers have been buying BDs due to there being a distinct lack of games, will produce a more secure platform than players which are...well, just players, once there are plenty of games to play on the games console?

Steve W

Interesting point of view. Why do you think none of those "ifs" apply to Warner, Universal and Paramount? Do they make different kind of movies?The original query was in the context of Disney. Also they've gone on record as saying a single format will drive the highest adoption; to my knowledge Warner has not yet done so. Universal and Paramount have selected HD DVD for reasons which clearly aren't based on current sales or vendor support, so they apparently have different motivation for their current position.

Can I ask why you think a games console for which gamers have been buying BDs due to there being a distinct lack of games, will produce a more secure platform than players which are...well, just players, once there are plenty of games to play on the games console?I've seen no evidence that PS3 owners are buying BD titles only because there is a "lack of games". I don't buy this reasoning. Someone looking for "something to do" with their PS3 because they don't find any interesting games would be likely to rent titles, not buy them. People don't buy movies unless they are a movie enthusiast, and people don't become movie enthusiasts only because they can't find any PS3 games. Further, there are many people here who bought a PS3 exclusively or primarily as a Blu-ray player because it was either cheaper, more expandable, or more capable than the standalone options available to them.

Given that Blu-ray content sales are double HD DVD sales while Blu-ray standalone player sales are by most estimates less than HD DVD player sales, there are only two ways to account for the disparity: either a much higher attach rate for BD standalone owners than HD DVD, or a substantial purchase population among PS3 owners. Increasing sales of the PS3 (due both to price cuts and upcoming highly-anticipated game releases) and increased awareness of the PS3's Blu-ray capability (due to Sony's marketing campaign) will likely continue to drive higher Blu-ray content sales.

I've seen no evidence that PS3 owners are buying BD titles only because there is a "lack of games". I don't buy this reasoning. Someone looking for "something to do" with their PS3 because they don't find any interesting games would be likely to rent titles, not buy them. People don't buy movies unless they are a movie enthusiast, and people don't become movie enthusiasts only because they can't find any PS3 games. Further, there are many people here who bought a PS3 exclusively or primarily as a Blu-ray player because it was either cheaper, more expandable, or more capable than the standalone options available to them.

Given that Blu-ray content sales are double HD DVD sales while Blu-ray standalone player sales are by most estimates less than HD DVD player sales, there are only two ways to account for the disparity: either a much higher attach rate for BD standalone owners than HD DVD, or a substantial purchase population among PS3 owners. Increasing sales of the PS3 (due both to price cuts and upcoming highly-anticipated game releases) and increased awareness of the PS3's Blu-ray capability (due to Sony's marketing campaign) will likely continue to drive higher Blu-ray content sales.
Or lots of BOGO and similar sales to pump up the numbers.

The original query was in the context of Disney. Also they've gone on record as saying a single format will drive the highest adoption; to my knowledge Warner has not yet done so. Universal and Paramount have selected HD DVD for reasons which clearly aren't based on current sales or vendor support, so they apparently have different motivation for their current position.
What they have "gone on record" and said is justification after the fact. Same is true of your position and that of mine :). If HD DVD sported Java and BD used HDi, I am sure you would be talking about great replication advantages of HD DVDs, how it is big enough, etc., etc. :) Saying this stuff doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I know you know the reality but can't say. So I will spill it. These things are like flip of a coin. 2 years ago, Disney looked in its crystal ball, and thought, before Sony launched PS3, that they would be able to end this thing quickly. Folks told them PS3 would be a guaranteed winning card, coming on the heels of PS2 and its success. This did not happen. So what to do? Say you made the wrong call? No. You hang in there until such time it looks obvious you made the wrong call. And for now you hang your hat on the other differentiators which you can talk about in public.

When is that time then? Well, if Fox went and published in HD DVD, that might be it (“what do all of these other studios know that we don’t?”). If Warner stopped making BD’s, that might be it. If Sony put in a dual format drive in PS3 that might be it. If their management changed altogether, that might be it. And yes, if someone provided enough of an incentive to them, that might be it. But then again, they could be stubborn and not change position no matter what happened in the world. We certainly stuck with HD DVD even when folks thought we weren’t doing so well (although I am not sure there are many companies like us in our level of patience.) A lot rides who made the decision and how secure they are regarding that decision….

Further, there are many people here who bought a PS3 exclusively or primarily as a Blu-ray player because it was either cheaper, more expandable, or more capable than the standalone options available to them.

Hi Talk,

I find your candor quite remarkable.

Perhaps I missed the point, but aren't you saying that the future of Blu-ray essentially rests in the hands of a heavily subsidized gaming console? As you point out most folks watching Blu-ray movies today are doing it on PS3s, because its frankly a better value than standalone players. This, of course, greatly constrains the sales of profitable standalone Blu-ray players.

How can taking a loss on millions of gaming consoles represent a winning strategy regardless of the short-term disc sales advantage? With Sony's CEO conceeding that the format war is a stalmate, surely this approach can't be sustained indefinately? After all, its really about being profitable, not saving face. Correct?

Thanks.

Larry

Talk,

Didn't Sony do a survey and something like 20% of PS3 owners even knew that it played Blu-ray discs? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm doing this from memory, which goes from time to time the older I get ;) )

Talk,

Didn't Sony do a survey and something like 20% of PS3 owners even knew that it played Blu-ray discs? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm doing this from memory, which goes from time to time the older I get ;) )
If Sony ever did such a survey, they would burn it before anyone found out :). I don't recall the source either but it was a third-party source. Probably in the news thread....

I believe the survey was done by the NPD Group - can't find the link. Survey contained how many had a PS3 - were aware of the BD capaibility and were buying BD movies.

Hi,

I don't know how credible this article is, since the independent research company is not named, but nevertheless here it is:

Gamers don't watch HD movies (http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/video/dvd-hdd-players-and-receivers/blu-ray-and-hd-dvd/news/high-def-movies-failed-by-ps3-xbox-360?articleid=1748725812)


Van Wynendaele - who's the spokesman for the HD DVD Promotion Group - made the claims during an exclusive interview with Tech.co.uk conducted yesterday. He also said that the majority of PS3 owners didn't know their consoles could play movies, period:

"[According to] the independent figures we have from independent research companies and so on, it appears that 60 per cent of games consoles owners don't know they can play movies - either DVD or Blu-ray - in the PS3. That means at least 60 per cent are not active.

"Even among the remaining 40 per cent... 13 per cent are actually using their games console as a player, and the rest are not. People are buying their consoles to play games, not to watch movies."



Larry

sony probably knows how many are watching movies...at least for those that are networked ...

Given that Blu-ray content sales are double HD DVD sales while Blu-ray standalone player sales are by most estimates less than HD DVD player sales, there are only two ways to account for the disparity: either a much higher attach rate for BD standalone owners than HD DVD, or a substantial purchase population among PS3 owners.

I believe sony has been misrepresenting these figures for quite some time.
More a case of what they don't mention rather than what they do.

2.7 million bluray players (incl ps3) vs 710,000 hd-dvd players (incl xbox360 addons) means bluray has 75% share of the player market but are only selling 1.75 bluray discs to every hd-dvd disc. If every person who has access to a device that can play bluray discs was buying them, the sales figures should look more like 3:1 - if attach rates where identical with hd-dvd.

On a per player basis.. hd-dvd is selling more titles than bluray is.

This suggest to me that there is a problem with bluray sales, already alluded to in independent research - quite a different picture from the 2:1 bluray/hd-dvd sales figure touted by sony (conveniently rounded up and entirely inaccurate).

Hi,

Here's an article consistent with Lee's recollection.

NPD: 30% of Xbox 360 Owners Aware of HD Graphics
And only 40% of PS3 users aware of its Blu-ray player. (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161833)


The NPD Group released results from their "Next Gen Functionality & Usage" report and some of the numbers are surprising.

According to the results, only 40% of PlayStation 3 owners polled were aware the machine had a Blu-ray player and about 50% of that number had popped in a Blu-ray movie during the last 10 times they turned on the machine -- the other half didn't use the feature.


Larry

Thanks for the articles...I knew my memory was failing me ;)

Thanks for the articles...I knew my memory was failing me ;)

Too much Turkey can do that to you:D

If Sony ever did such a survey, they would burn it before anyone found out :). I don't recall the source either but it was a third-party source. Probably in the news thread....

Is this the one you're looking for? It was an NPD survey.

Report: Gamers largely clueless about next-gen console media capabilities
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070809-report-gamers-largely-clueless-about-next-gen-console-media-capabilities.html

For some gamers, these functions go a long way towards justifying the high price of these systems, but a new study from the NPD Group suggests that not only are people not using these functions, they're not even aware of them.

Sony is hoping the PlayStation 3 will get more customers on its side in the HD DVD/Blu-ray format war, but the bad news for them is that while the PS3 has helped to increase the installed base of Blu-ray players, only 40 percent of PS3 owners surveyed knew that the system even had Blu-ray built-in. Furthermore, only half of those people had played a Blu-ray movie in the last ten times they turned on their PS3s.

********

I was too slow. I blame the turkey as well. :)

Happy Thanksgiving, Steve - I appreciate the kind words!

Thanks Talk. I hope you too enjoy whatever time off you have with family.

And for sticking it out here and indulging me us. It truly is a great opportunity to rub elbows with some of the folks behind the scenes... even if the familiarity does cause sparks on occasion. Best to you.

I've seen no evidence that PS3 owners are buying BD titles only because there is a "lack of games". I don't buy this reasoning. Someone looking for "something to do" with their PS3 because they don't find any interesting games would be likely to rent titles, not buy them. People don't buy movies unless they are a movie enthusiast, and people don't become movie enthusiasts only because they can't find any PS3 games. Further, there are many people here who bought a PS3 exclusively or primarily as a Blu-ray player because it was either cheaper, more expandable, or more capable than the standalone options available to them.

Given that Blu-ray content sales are double HD DVD sales while Blu-ray standalone player sales are by most estimates less than HD DVD player sales, there are only two ways to account for the disparity: either a much higher attach rate for BD standalone owners than HD DVD, or a substantial purchase population among PS3 owners. Increasing sales of the PS3 (due both to price cuts and upcoming highly-anticipated game releases) and increased awareness of the PS3's Blu-ray capability (due to Sony's marketing campaign) will likely continue to drive higher Blu-ray content sales.

Hmmm. I brought this up a bit back, but nobody bit.

Trouble is, when you look at the numbers, it appears that only something like 1 in 5 to 1 in 8 owners of PS3's are using them for movie watching. While that is driving SOME disc sales out of sheer volume, it means the attach rate is likely rather abysmal.

When anyone asks me what BD player to buy, I tell everyone who wants one to buy a PS3 because I think in the end, it will be a Profile 2.0 player and it is the safest bet to not be a boat anchor when "complete" players finally hit the streets.

I also tell people to buy either the A2 or A3 is they want to be able to play both formats. To a man, everyone says "What the **** were these companies thinking?".

To a man, everyone says "What the **** were these companies thinking?".They were thinking that they wanted to had this over to the Koreans like they did displays.

I also tell people to buy either the A2 or A3 is they want to be able to play both formats. To a man, everyone says "What the **** were these companies thinking?".

HD-DVD has been so good the first year because they needed to show that they could despite more limited technical specs.

BR has become so good the second year because they were trounced in PQ the first year by HD-DVD.

Without the past competition, we would be stuck with second rate HD.

And without future competition with BR, HD-DVD quality will go down a notch, because it's harder to encode movies for it.

And without future competition with BR, HD-DVD quality will go down a notch, because it's harder to encode movies for it.


First, it is HD DVD and not HD-DVD.

Second, I agree that competition is a good thing and it has helped out early adopters a lot with price reductions on hardware, BOGO free promotions, etc. But if either format wants to challenge DVD, then to borrow a phrase from Highlander, "There can be only one." This is my opinion, of course, and the marketplace may decide differently.

Third, HD DVD is harder to encode in some difficult encoding sequences (heavy grain is one), but it isn't impossible to do. The new VC-1 encoder has improved this quite a bit and hand tweaking isn't as necessary and the encode process goes much quicker.

Both formats have show a propensity to give us great quality, as long as the master is of good quality. The old "garbage in, garbage out" phrase is very applicable here.

Perhaps I missed the point, but aren't you saying that the future of Blu-ray essentially rests in the hands of a heavily subsidized gaming console? As you point out most folks watching Blu-ray movies today are doing it on PS3s, because its frankly a better value than standalone players.For the first (and probably many of the second) generation of players, this is true. Given that the new players coming out, with the Panasonic DMP-BD30 as the first, the gap has been greatly narrowed, with the standalones offering Profile 1.1 support, much better performance (I'm told many of the upcoming players will have responsiveness comparable to the PS3), and some features the PS3 doesn't have such as 5/7.1 analog output, home theatre control options, etc. But there is no question that without the PS3 Blu-ray would have had a much more difficult road up to now.
This, of course, greatly constrains the sales of profitable standalone Blu-ray players.No more than does Toshiba's heavy subsidization (or paper-thin margins, I don't care to get into that argument) with regards to vendors entering the HD DVD market. And as I said, there are many consumers who simply don't want a PS3 in their HT, whereas it's much harder to differentiate from the Toshiba players other than going upscale.
How can taking a loss on millions of gaming consoles represent a winning strategy regardless of the short-term disc sales advantage?How can forgoing profit margins work any better for Toshiba? Arguably Sony has much more at stake with Blu-ray than Toshiba does with HD DVD (given the breadth of Sony's product line, the fact they own a studio and 50% of a record label, etc.). Also every PS3 sold may eventually pay for itself via gaming and networked content revenues; it's much harder for Toshiba to make the same argument with regards to HD DVD players which have neither games nor sufficient storage to be used as a media center.
With Sony's CEO conceeding that the format war is a stalmate, surely this approach can't be sustained indefinately?That comment was taken as a soundbite from a very wide-ranging 90 minute casual discussion and seized upon in a way entirely out of context with Stringer's intent (as evidenced by his subsequent interviews, or reading the transcript of the interview in full). It is no indication of a capitulation on Sony's part, not to mention the other formidable lineup of companies solely backing Blu-ray. If there was such turmoil in the format don't you think there would be other indications of companies wavering? Yet the only significant change has been Paramount/Dreamworks, and we know that shift had some incentives attached which certainly don't allow it to be considered a decision based solely on the relative state of the two formats.

- Talk

Trouble is, when you look at the numbers, it appears that only something like 1 in 5 to 1 in 8 owners of PS3's are using them for movie watching. While that is driving SOME disc sales out of sheer volume, it means the attach rate is likely rather abysmal.I don't know how you draw conclusions from this. If the PS3 audience isn't buying movies than the Blu-ray attach rate for standalones is much higher than it is for HD DVD. And doesn't it seem to follow that the population willing to pay 2-3x for the player is also likely to buy more content? On the other hand, if the PS3 audience does buy movies than the much higher number of PS3's than HD DVD players sold also works in Blu-ray's favor.

Whichever scenario is true (or something in the middle), the only hard data we have is that on a very consistent basis for the last year Blu-ray media has been outselling HD DVD by a 2:1 margin.

But if either format wants to challenge DVD, then to borrow a phrase from Highlander, "There can be only one." This is my opinion, of course, and the marketplace may decide differently.

That's certainly true for mass adoption. But I would prefer a high quality marginal HD format (which like it's already the case publishes most of the new movies) to a low quality universal one.

Third, HD DVD is harder to encode in some difficult encoding sequences (heavy grain is one), but it isn't impossible to do.

Of course, we have numerous examples about that.

The new VC-1 encoder has improved this quite a bit and hand tweaking isn't as necessary and the encode process goes much quicker.

That's not what my eyes tell me with recent encodes. I feel that quality has been down a notch, even with recent movies like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Both formats have show a propensity to give us great quality, as long as the master is of good quality. The old "garbage in, garbage out" phrase is very applicable here.

The importance of a good quality master is of course paramount. Preserving it also is.

snip.......

That comment was taken as a soundbite from a very wide-ranging 90 minute casual discussion and seized upon in a way entirely out of context with Stringer's intent (as evidenced by his subsequent interviews, or reading the transcript of the interview in full). It is no indication of a capitulation on Sony's part, not to mention the other formidable lineup of companies solely backing Blu-ray. If there was such turmoil in the format don't you think there would be other indications of companies wavering? Yet the only significant change has been Paramount/Dreamworks, and we know that shift had some incentives attached which certainly don't allow it to be considered a decision based solely on the relative state of the two formats.

- Talk

Talk, I read the full transcript that Bill Hunt posted on thedigitalbits. Is there a different transcript? According to Bill Hunt he posted everything in the 90 minute interview that related to BD and HD DVD. It was posted here as well.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12204586&highlight=Howard+Stringer#post12204586

It's a difficult... it's a difficult fight. There was a chance to integrate it before I became CEO. This is something I inherited. And I don't know what broke down. I wish I could go back there, because I heard it was all about saving face and losing face, and all the rest of it. But it's not a battle about the digital future. That's what's so strange about it. If it doesn't work out, that doesn't say very much about where we're all going. It's just... it's a scorecard: one-nothing or something. But it doesn't mean as much as all that. PlayStation 3 will still go on playing games. It would have to have a different disk drive. And that's about it really.

I imagine that the upset caused to other Blu-Ray members at reading the above quotes led Howard Stringer to come back to the press a few days later to reaffirm Sony's commitment to BD and their confidence that the format will prevail.

That's certainly true for mass adoption. But I would prefer a high quality marginal HD format (which like it's already the case publishes most of the new movies) to a low quality universal one.



Of course, we have numerous examples about that.



That's not what my eyes tell me with recent encodes. I feel that quality has been down a notch, even with recent movies like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.



The importance of a good quality master is of course paramount. Preserving it also is.

I haven't seen order yet, so I can't comment on that. I will try and find out which encoder was used (older or newer VC-1 encoder).

Whichever scenario is true (or something in the middle), the only hard data we have is that on a very consistent basis for the last year Blu-ray media has been outselling HD DVD by a 2:1 margin.

Which hard data is this?

I don't know how you draw conclusions from this. If the PS3 audience isn't buying movies than the Blu-ray attach rate for standalones is much higher than it is for HD DVD. And doesn't it seem to follow that the population willing to pay 2-3x for the player is also likely to buy more content? On the other hand, if the PS3 audience does buy movies than the much higher number of PS3's than HD DVD players sold also works in Blu-ray's favor.

Whichever scenario is true (or something in the middle), the only hard data we have is that on a very consistent basis for the last year Blu-ray media has been outselling HD DVD by a 2:1 margin.


Well, the NPD data mentioned above, for one. If only 20% or less of folks even KNOW that the PS3 is a movie player, then isn't it going to follow that the disc attach rate will likewise be small when taking the PS3 population as a whole?

Which seems to mesh with the overall numbers I believe I've seen estimated here:

As of now, there are ~600K-700K HD DVD decks out there.

As of now there are ~500K-600K BR decks out there. There are also ~3.5Mil PS3's

That's a ~5:1 ratio of BR to HD players, yet only ~2:1 disc sales.

If we use the "20% of PS3's as movie players" data from the NPD poll mentioned above, then the combined total BR players being actively used for movies is ~1.2-1.3 million. Which just about exactly matches the disc sales ratio.

So, either all player attach rates are REALLY low. Or, standalone deck movie attach rates are on par with HD DVD and, as we have corroborated by the poll, and 4 out of 5 PS3's aren't playing movies.

If Sony ever did such a survey, they would burn it before anyone found out :). I don't recall the source either but it was a third-party source. Probably in the news thread....

Yes, it was third party if I remember correctly. In fact, Talkstr8t referenced a Survey earlier this year that was pushed by Sony. I believe the numbers in that Sony Survey stated that something like 80-90% of PS3's were used for Blu-ray playback.

Talk, do you have any details to add to this? You referenced the survey and the 80-90% number several times if I remember correctly. Do you still stand by these Sony numbers?

I don't know how you draw conclusions from this. If the PS3 audience isn't buying movies than the Blu-ray attach rate for standalones is much higher than it is for HD DVD. And doesn't it seem to follow that the population willing to pay 2-3x for the player is also likely to buy more content? On the other hand, if the PS3 audience does buy movies than the much higher number of PS3's than HD DVD players sold also works in Blu-ray's favor.

Whichever scenario is true (or something in the middle), the only hard data we have is that on a very consistent basis for the last year Blu-ray media has been outselling HD DVD by a 2:1 margin.

Except that 2:1 margin hasn't really been consistent, has it? Hasn't it been getting closer and closer all year? So while more and more PS3's are selling as compared to HD DVD standalone players, the software sales lead is actually shrinking. Wouldn't you say that's a pretty significant trend?

Especially considering that some of the Blu-ray Exclusive Studios like Sony and Disney have had to give away half their discs in certain weeks in order to barely come away with a 'win' -- as in the recent 51:49 week?

Which hard data is this?

Umm...Neilsen Videoscan?

Probably the hardest data we have.
Otherwise we compare what the respective companies and studies boast as hard data?
Which would you prefer?

Except that 2:1 margin hasn't really been consistent, has it? Hasn't it been getting closer and closer all year? So while more and more PS3's are selling as compared to HD DVD standalone players, the software sales lead is actually shrinking. Wouldn't you say that's a pretty significant trend?

The YTD would imply a consistency.

The fact that there has only been a few weeks that have strayed from that would also imply.

Umm...Neilsen Videoscan?

Probably the hardest data we have.
Otherwise we compare what the respective companies and studies boast as hard data?
Which would you prefer?

Actually, isn't Neilsen Data showing something that is more like 3:2 or 1.5:1 ?

The YTD would imply a consistency.

The fact that there has only been a few weeks that have strayed from that would also imply.

Why look at YTD and not SI numbers? Shouldn't we be looking at this since Day 1 instead of a specific period/range of time?

Looking at YTD to justify a position is no different than looking at the last 8 weeks to justify a position. /shrug

Either way, it's pretty clear that the sales margin has been shrinking all year while Blu-ray has added way more Blu-ray players month over month than HD DVD has added players.

The trend is clearly a closing gap. Considering again that less HD DVD players have sold in relation to Blu-ray players, and Blu-ray Studios have had to give away half their discs on several occasions, how does one explain this? :confused:

Hasn't the Nielsen data shown stronger quarter to quarter sales for HD DVD when compared to Blu-Ray since the start of the year?

It will be interesting to see if that continues in the 4th quarter despite BDs stronger 4th quarter release line-up.

Talkstr8t here is a question based upon this article. You have been writing about the justification and origin for Blu-ray and why it is a better format. This article states that Toshiba almost quit and wanted to join the Blu-ray camp but was talked out of it by Microsoft. Can you comment on the accuracy of this article?

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/

Why look at YTD and not SI numbers? Shouldn't we be looking at this since Day 1 instead of a specific period/range of time?

Looking at YTD to justify a position is no different than looking at the last 8 weeks to justify a position. /shrug

Either way, it's pretty clear that the sales margin has been shrinking all year while Blu-ray has added way more Blu-ray players month over month than HD DVD has added players.

The trend is clearly a closing gap. Considering again that less HD DVD players have sold in relation to Blu-ray players, and Blu-ray Studios have had to give away half their discs on several occasions, how does one explain this? :confused:

Given HDM's slow start, I think it's much more realistic to look at the YTD than it is to talk about a trend in a few weeks time. Yeah SI IS relevant. But looking at the whole past year is a whole lot more realistic.

Throughout the year the neilsen data has only had a handful of hiccups where hd dvd came close to parity with Blu Ray.

Were hd dvd able to produce the kind of week it had with transformers week and the trailing week..say, 3 more times before Jan is over I could see the whole "trend in the neilesns is starting to favor hd dvd" optimism have some real validity.

Actually, isn't Neilsen Data showing something that is more like 3:2 or 1.5:1 ?

It's a little better than that if you're just looking at the past few weeks.
I'm generally all for looking at things on a more long term scope, but it seems many here do not see a problem with using a few weeks data to define a "trend".

Given HDM's slow start, I think it's much more realistic to look at the YTD than it is to talk about a trend in a few weeks time. Yeah SI IS relevant. But looking at the whole past year is a whole lot more realistic.

Throughout the year the neilsen data has only had a handful of hiccups where hd dvd came close to parity with Blu Ray.

Were hd dvd able to produce the kind of week it had with transformers week and the trailing week..say, 3 more times before Jan is over I could see the whole "trend in the neilesns is starting to favor hd dvd" optimism have some real validity.

Even looking at YTD, HD DVD has been closing the gap in Nielsen Data. The trend is a closing gap.

It's interesting that you cite HDM's slow start as reasoning for using YTD. Shouldn't we then consider that we should ignore the first 6 months of the year as well -- due to the slow start and that being the slowest season for electronics in general?

The point is simply we can take any data set period and have it show what we want. If we look at SI, we at least have the same point of reference as we're taking in *all* the data. But, like I said, it's moot ... even looking at YTD HD DVD has been closing the gap when it comes to software sales -- even though the Blu-ray camp has given away half their discs on several occassions and has sold way more Blu-ray players relative to HD DVD players. /shrug

I'm not sure you can say the gap is closing when the sales are still 61:39 favoring Blu-ray since inception. Until the SI numbers start to get closer to 50/50, the gap isn't closing. BD discs are still selling better week in and week out and the gap between titles sold is larger every week in actual numbers. The percentage is pretty much the same, but if one format sells 50,000 more discs every week, in 20 weeks they have 1,000,000 more discs sold.

It's a little better than that if you're just looking at the past few weeks.
I'm generally all for looking at things on a more long term scope, but it seems many here do not see a problem with using a few weeks data to define a "trend".

I'm not necessarily looking at the past few weeks though. In January, the BDA was touting a more than 2:1 sales advantage. Now that same advantage was touted as 'nearly 2:1' ... and it's really not even that 'near'. That shows a trend of a closing gap despite higher Blu-ray player sales relative to HD DVD player sales. /shrug

Talkstr8t here is a question based upon this article. You have been writing about the justification and origin for Blu-ray and why it is a better format. This article states that Toshiba almost quit and wanted to join the Blu-ray camp but was talked out of it by Microsoft. Can you comment on the accuracy of this article?

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/

I followed those proceedings very closely. In fact Toshiba was offered to pretty much give up on their format and just join the BDA. There was no compromising offered on BDA's part. What they basically told Toshiba is to ditch HD DVD and join the masses. It wasn't a compromise, it was a capitulation the BDA was after.

I followed those proceedings very closely. In fact Toshiba was offered to pretty much give up on their format and just join the BDA. There was no compromising offered on BDA's part. What they basically told Toshiba is to ditch HD DVD and join the masses. It wasn't a compromise, it was a capitulation the BDA was after.

How in the world do you ask a company, who has made BILLIONS from DVD, and will continue to make more BILLIONS . . . to give up a chance to do it again?

For the good of the consumer?

Please don't make me laugh.

I followed those proceedings very closely. In fact Toshiba was offered to pretty much give up on their format and just join the BDA. There was no compromising offered on BDA's part. What they basically told Toshiba is to ditch HD DVD and join the masses. It wasn't a compromise, it was a capitulation the BDA was after.

The article seems biased to me.
It tries to make Sony and Phillips look good; it doesn't mention how their MMCD format was inferior to DVD at the time (although they kept touting the advantage of easier replication for MMCDs; something that today counts as an advantage for HD DVD). The article is clearly pro-Sony and anti-Microsoft.

Kind of interesting the concept of "trends of closing the gap".

One of the threads that got censored last night...I pointed out that the price differential between the Samsung 1400 and The A2 on Amazon was about 152 bucks last night. There may be other reasons why the thread was shut down. But couldnt we also say that this is a trend in closing the gap?

We went from a $500 gap to several hunderd dollars and now: about $150?

How in the world do you ask a company, who has made BILLIONS from DVD, and will continue to make more BILLIONS . . . to give up a chance to do it again?

For the good of the consumer?

Please don't make me laugh.

I'm just reporting what went on at the time. Why do you think Toshiba just went ahead and didn't even consider that "offer" ? Why do you think the voting procedure of the DVD Forum had to be changed at the last hour in order for HD DVD to be adopted ? BDA tried to force the DVD Forum's hand in order to get BR adopted.

People keep saying Microsoft this, Microsoft that, the fact of the matter is that Sony and by extension the BDA was so confident it would just be a walk in the park, they asked Toshiba to just give up and work for them, not work with them. Feel free to believe all the Microsoft conspiracies, but at the time Microsoft wanted their codec to be mandatory, and not much more than that. HD DVD had VC1 decoding mandatory from pretty much the start, not so with BR, who only wanted MPEG2 until later in the game where they decided to align the codecs with that of HD DVD.

Kind of interesting the concept of "trends of closing the gap".

One of the threads that got censored last night...I pointed out that the price differential between the Samsung 1400 and The A2 on Amazon was about 152 bucks last night. There may be other reasons why the thread was shut down. But couldnt we also say that this is a trend in closing the gap?

We went from a $500 gap to several hunderd dollars and now: about $150?

You forgot to mention : "for a 1.0 end-of-the-line player that can't be upgraded".

I'm not sure you can say the gap is closing when the sales are still 61:39 favoring Blu-ray since inception. Until the SI numbers start to get closer to 50/50, the gap isn't closing. BD discs are still selling better week in and week out and the gap between titles sold is larger every week in actual numbers. The percentage is pretty much the same, but if one format sells 50,000 more discs every week, in 20 weeks they have 1,000,000 more discs sold.

I agree with your analysis. As with political campaigns you need to look at current polls and trends. But the bottom line for a profit oriented business is dollars. So an extra million sales equate to about an extra $20 to $30 million dollars in sales over 20 weeks or $50 to $80 million over a year. In my book that's a lot of money.

I'm just reporting what went on at the time. Why do you think Toshiba just went ahead and didn't even consider that "offer" ? Why do you think the voting procedure of the DVD Forum had to be changed at the last hour in order for HD DVD to be adopted ? BDA tried to force the DVD Forum's hand in order to get BR adopted.

People keep saying Microsoft this, Microsoft that, the fact of the matter is that Sony and by extension the BDA was so confident it would just be a walk in the park, they asked Toshiba to just give up and work for them, not work with them. Feel free to believe all the Microsoft conspiracies, but at the time Microsoft wanted their codec to be mandatory, and not much more than that. HD DVD had VC1 decoding mandatory from pretty much the start, not so with BR, who only wanted MPEG2 until later in the game where they decided to align the codecs with that of HD DVD.

So who had the best chance in replacing DVD (an almost impossible job)? The format that:

1. Used the existing archetiture of DVD
2. Used the same replication lines as DVD
3. Had two formats that allowed both HD and SD

Or the format that demanded an entire change in the infrastructure and is not compatible AT ALL with DVD?

Actually, isn't Neilsen Data showing something that is more like 3:2 or 1.5:1 ?

Both are correct - you can say that out of 100 discs sold, the ratio is ~3:2 which reflects say a ~ 65/35 ratio split.

You can also say that 35% x 2 = 70%, which is within 5% of 65% or "close to double"

It's like margin vs markup, where 1.67*cost price = retail price and retail price *.6 = cost price.

So who had the best chance in replacing DVD (an almost impossible job)? The format that:

1. Used the existing archetiture of DVD
2. Used the same replication lines as DVD
3. Had two formats that allowed both HD and SD

Or the format that demanded an entire change in the infrastructure and is not compatible AT ALL with DVD?

Hence we have format war today. I think the issues of royalties and the amount of control over the media were more important than answering those questions.

Talk, do you have any details to add to this? You referenced the survey and the 80-90% number several times if I remember correctly. Do you still stand by these Sony numbers?These numbers were based on the survey which the PS3 presents upon signing up for a PS3 Network login. I don't believe they fudged the numbers (I think it was something like 80% plan to use it to watch Blu-ray movies), but I can also appreciate that the sample was from early adopters (ones who jumped through hoops to get the PS3) who were connecting to the network, so probably doesn't reflect the population at large.
Except that 2:1 margin hasn't really been consistent, has it? Hasn't it been getting closer and closer all year?How so? Here are the numbers for the last six weeks:
10/07 68% 32%
10/14 71% 29%
10/21 51% 49%
10/28 55% 45%
11/04 71% 29%
11/11 65% 35%

Especially considering that some of the Blu-ray Exclusive Studios like Sony and Disney have had to give away half their discs in certain weeks in order to barely come away with a 'win' -- as in the recent 51:49 week?During a week where the biggest HD DVD-exclusive launch yet happened. So it appears the only weeks where HD DVD has narrowed the gap are where they had an exclusive launch, something which there aren't many (any) left this year.
Why look at YTD and not SI numbers? Shouldn't we be looking at this since Day 1 instead of a specific period/range of time?Why compare a period where both formats didn't even have products in the market? Blu-ray numbers didn't become meaningful until the PS3 was released in November of 2006. Using YTD certainly captures a more accurate picture of current consumer behavior than does SI.

So who had the best chance in replacing DVD (an almost impossible job)? The format that:

1. Used the existing archetiture of DVD
2. Used the same replication lines as DVD
3. Had two formats that allowed both HD and SD

Or the format that demanded an entire change in the infrastructure and is not compatible AT ALL with DVD?

I couldn't agree more, but Sony and the BDA saw an opportunity to "own" the market and reap multi-billions in benefits while keeping margins high and the manufacturers a japanese club only. Of course, it's not the way it went and it's very unlikely HD DVD will fold at this point.

Talkstr8t here is a question based upon this article. You have been writing about the justification and origin for Blu-ray and why it is a better format. This article states that Toshiba almost quit and wanted to join the Blu-ray camp but was talked out of it by Microsoft. Can you comment on the accuracy of this article?

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/
That article shows the BDA companies at their best, which doesn't really match up with their public behaviour during at least the last 2 years. Therefore I'd love to see HD DVD insiders (Amir?) view and comments about that little story as well.

That roughlydrafted.com article is clearly biased. Did Bill Gates do something personal to this guy?

That article shows the BDA companies at their best, which doesn't really match up with their public behaviour during at least the last 2 years. Therefore I'd love to see HD DVD insiders (Amir?) view and comments about that little story as well.

I can pretty much guarantee Amir would back up most if not all of what I told you regarding this subject. There are certainly behind closed doors deals that I don't know about but other than a few people at the companies concerned by those, nobody will get to know and it's not something you're likely to find anywhere. All I can go by is what was reported from the proceedings at the time this was unfolding.

That roughlydrafted.com article is clearly biased. Did Bill Gates do something personal to this guy?

I think some folks are willing to blame the format war on Microsoft rather than the japanese companies which are behind the formats and actually designed them.
The hatred for Microsoft knows no boundaries and some folks love to blame them for almost everything and this format war is no exception. All Microsoft did was to express their opinion and support the other format; and therefore they should be blamed instead of Toshiba and Sony who created these formats!
The most famous example is to bash Microsoft for their interest in Digital distribution but somehow Apple who hasn't done anything for the HD market gets no blame (obviously because they are part of the BDA).

Why compare a period where both formats didn't even have products in the market? Blu-ray numbers didn't become meaningful until the PS3 was released in November of 2006. Using YTD certainly captures a more accurate picture of current consumer behavior than does SI.

Because SI is actually only about 6-8 weeks different for the two formats. That BD didn't do very well until the PS3 launched is inconsequential.

Also curious how Sony's numbers (seemingly according to you from PSN login info) show 80+% BD usage however the NPD poll shows that only 50% of PS3 users are even AWARE that the PS3 is a BD player. Any idea how exactly this comes out?

I can pretty much guarantee Amir would back up most if not all of what I told you regarding this subject. There are certainly behind closed doors deals that I don't know about but other than a few people at the companies concerned by those, nobody will get to know and it's not something you're likely to find anywhere. All I can go by is what was reported from the proceedings at the time this was unfolding.
Eurotrance, I've read your statements and agree. The article seems to be heavily biased against MS and wants us to believe the BDA has no skeletons in the closet. I hope Amir writes down his "memoires about the format war" so we get another view on that.

Talkstr8t here is a question based upon this article. You have been writing about the justification and origin for Blu-ray and why it is a better format. This article states that Toshiba almost quit and wanted to join the Blu-ray camp but was talked out of it by Microsoft. Can you comment on the accuracy of this article?

Origins of the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD War

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/08/29/origins-of-the-blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-war/

I can't believe we're quoting RoughlyDrafted. As an Apple fan and Mac user that website embarrasses even me. It has a major problem about Microsoft and anything they are involved in, so I'd take anything they say with a large pinch of salt.

I can't believe we're quoting RoughlyDrafted. As an Apple fan and Mac user that website embarrasses even me. It has a major problem about Microsoft and anything they are involved in, so I'd take anything they say with a large pinch of salt.

Well said. I love my macs but apple fanatics are worst part of being a mac user!

I can't believe we're quoting RoughlyDrafted. As an Apple fan and Mac user that website embarrasses even me. It has a major problem about Microsoft and anything they are involved in, so I'd take anything they say with a large pinch of salt.

I didn't want to bring up an Apple vs. Microsoft debate, but that was the feeling I got from that site the first time I went to it.

One thing I'd like to add regarding Microsoft siding with HD DVD is that after the issue regarding VC1's adoption, another point of contention was the interactive layer. HDi from Microsoft on one side, BD-Java on the other. I don't believe BDA, once they sided with Java, was an option for Microsoft...

There was other issues too, such as managed copy, but as far as we know, these were the main problems that initiated this format war. Of course, it's all based on what makes the world go round, money, and we most likely will never know about the real ramblings that went on in the secrecy of some companies.

You forgot to mention : "for a 1.0 end-of-the-line player that can't be upgraded".

Then you would forget to mention that the A3 is 1080i , no 24fps and lacking in the audio dept compared to the 1400.

I thought I was being generous even comparing the a3 to it. The a35 would make a fairer comparison since it has more of the advanced features. But of course, it's more expensive.

Then you would forget to mention that the A3 is 1080i , no 24fps and lacking in the audio dept compared to the 1400.

I thought I was being generous even comparing the a3 to it. The a35 would make a fairer comparison since it has more of the advanced features. But of course, it's more expensive.

This is not the place for this, but at least an A2 or an A3 will still offer tomorrow the interactive features that future titles will have. Not so with a 1.0 player. You and me both know that 1080p and 24fps are a niche inside of a niche and that 1080i will look just as good on a 1080p TV that properly deinterlaces as a 1080p player will. Whoever owns a 1080p/24fps capable TV/projector today is certainly not looking for the cheapest player they can find, therefore neither the 1400 nor the A2/A3 are the answer for that market.

These numbers were based on the survey which the PS3 presents upon signing up for a PS3 Network login. I don't believe they fudged the numbers (I think it was something like 80% plan to use it to watch Blu-ray movies), but I can also appreciate that the sample was from early adopters (ones who jumped through hoops to get the PS3) who were connecting to the network, so probably doesn't reflect the population at large.

Ah, okay ... it's just that that seemed to be a major talking point earlier in the year -- one that apparently hasn't panned out.


How so? Here are the numbers for the last six weeks:
10/07 68% 32%
10/14 71% 29%
10/21 51% 49%
10/28 55% 45%
11/04 71% 29%
11/11 65% 35%



The trend I'm referring to was based on SI, and even YTD. Why bring up the last 6 weeks that only seem to reinforce the larger trend we've been seeing? One where HD DVD software sales are closing the gap while Blu-ray players seem to be outselling the HD DVD players hand over fist.


During a week where the biggest HD DVD-exclusive launch yet happened. So it appears the only weeks where HD DVD has narrowed the gap are where they had an exclusive launch, something which there aren't many (any) left this year.


Actually, HD DVD would have won the weeks when it had exclusives if it weren't for the Blu-ray Studios giving away half their discs. And when we compare exclusives to exclusives, it seems to me that HD DVD is pulling more weight. Transformers' Paramount numbers clearly outsold SM3 by comparison -- and with a fraction of the players.


Why compare a period where both formats didn't even have products in the market? Blu-ray numbers didn't become meaningful until the PS3 was released in November of 2006. Using YTD certainly captures a more accurate picture of current consumer behavior than does SI.

Blu-ray players were available before the PS3 was available. We really can't pick and choose and suggest that sales didn't count until the PS3 was released or sales didn't count until Spiderman came out or, etc.

Using YTD or SI numbers, it's moot ... both show that the 2:1 sales ratio that Blu-ray had has been diminishing over the course of 2007. They're losing the lead they picked up thanks to the PS3 even though they're selling hundreds of thousands of Blu-ray capable players every month -- which is way more hardware than HD DVD is selling. /shrug

This is not the place for this, but at least an A2 or an A3 will still offer tomorrow the interactive features that future titles will have. Not so with a 1.0 player. You and me both know that 1080p and 24fps are a niche inside of a niche and that 1080i will look just as good on a 1080p TV that properly deinterlaces as a 1080p player will. Whoever owns a 1080p/24fps capable TV/projector today is certainly not looking for the cheapest player they can find, therefore neither the 1400 nor the A2/A3 are the answer for that market.

*Very* well put reply. Whole-heartedly agree.

This is not the place for this, but at least an A2 or an A3 will still offer tomorrow the interactive features that future titles will have. Not so with a 1.0 player. You and me both know that 1080p and 24fps are a niche inside of a niche and that 1080i will look just as good on a 1080p TV that properly deinterlaces as a 1080p player will. Whoever owns a 1080p/24fps capable TV/projector today is certainly not looking for the cheapest player they can find, therefore neither the 1400 nor the A2/A3 are the answer for that market.

We agree in more ways than you think. You were pointing out what the 1400 lacked ,I was pointing out what the a3 lacked. IME would be a deal breaker for you.1080p24 and dts ma was a deal breaker for me. See what I mean?

The original point was that the price gap is closing.

I pointed out just an example of the pricing alone on amazon being the closest it's been. The response I got was trashing the 1400 basically saying it was going to be obsolete based on IME. And I could say the same thing based on where I feel the a3 is lacking. So the player comparison's is kinda unnecessary.

The point was that Blu Ray is closing the price gap more than ever.
Especially for the savvy shopper. Seen the price on the Sharp?

Then the gap gets closer to $100.

What happens when the gap is virtaully gone? More $98 sales?

Hold on to that profile talking point, hold on to it for dear ilfe.

Then you would forget to mention that the A3 is 1080i , no 24fps and lacking in the audio dept compared to the 1400.
And you would forget the tens of millions of TVs that will only accept 1080i, and/or just have component ins.

And you would forget the tens of millions of TVs that will only accept 1080i, and/or just have component ins.

Then you'd forget the minions that could give two _ about IME like myself.
C'mon lets not debate the X player vs x player. we'd get nowhere. And this isnt the place for that.

Still dodging the point about brand new players coming close to $100 in parity for pricing.


Someone said they like to look for trends in the neilsens that indicate hd dvd could reach parity.

So why not look at how the "gap" in player pricing is being eroded far from what it was months ago?

All I'm saying.

Then you'd forget the minions that could give two _ about IME like myself.

Then you'd forget that the studios are the ones who like it and are going to do it anyway.

C'mon lets not debate the X player vs x player. we'd get nowhere. And this isnt the place for that. Still dodging the point about brand new players coming close to $100 in parity for pricing.How am I dodging that?


Someone said they like to look for trends in the neilsens that indicate hd dvd could reach parity.HD DVD does have parity in the world of no sales.

So why not look at how the "gap" in player pricing is being eroded far from what it was months ago? I don't see that as an issue for the peeps. Low prices are good prices.