Insiders Tracking Thread: post it here

This thread compliments the Insiders Q&A thread: posts not allowed in the Insiders Q&A thread can be posted here;

Insiders/ Outsiders invited to post here; please be sure your post meets AVS guidelines :)

Insiders & Outsiders are welcome: we expect the highest level of decorum

more to follow...

Nice idea Mark.

A suggestion to Mark and members. I think we should follow the high standards of civility that exists in Insider thread. Let's use this as a model for all the other threads to follow....

Oops. Mark beat me to it :).

Yes, 63% of total revenue spent on standalone high-def players.
It's called marketing. At least no information was left out here, as opposed to the HD DVD PRG's claim regarding "standalone player sales being much higher in Europe", while conveniently ignoring the fact that when factoring in game consoles Blu-ray has a 94% market share.

this question is not posted at talkst8t specifically, but any BDA insider.

I think the question is tough, but reasonable and I dont wish to offend anyone by asking this.


Does any BDA insider feel the above is a reasonable way to inform the public about the situation regarding Blu-Ray Stand alone players and its market share? Do you feel this is misleading?

Is a major reason why there are not more BDA insiders posting on AVS due to the fact that they do not whish to have questions like this directed at them?

There may be examples of HD DVD PRG doing things, but I am curious about this situation...mainly because i found it a little insulting.

Nice idea Mark.

A suggestion to Mark and members. I think we should follow the high standards of civility that exists in Insider thread. Let's use this as a model for all the other threads to follow....

For once I agree 100% with amirm.:)

Nice idea Mark.

A suggestion to Mark and members. I think we should follow the high standards of civility that exists in Insider thread. Let's use this as a model for all the other threads to follow....
I'm subscribed. We'll see . . .

A suggestion to Mark and members. I think we should follow the high standards of civility that exists in Insider thread. Let's use this as a model for all the other threads to follow....

I echo this sentiment. There's plenty left for members of this forum to learn about these new formats and there's no reason why this information cannot be gleaned and shared in a polite and respectful manner :).

Is a major reason why there are not more BDA insiders posting on AVS due to the fact that they do not whish to have questions like this directed at them?No. It's not a reason at all.

But here's the crux of the real problem, though. If I explained the factual reasons for what happened, my post would get deleted.

this question is not posted at talkst8t specifically, but any BDA insider.

I think the question is tough, but reasonable and I dont wish to offend anyone by asking this.


Does any BDA insider feel the above is a reasonable way to inform the public about the situation regarding Blu-Ray Stand alone players and its market share? Do you feel this is misleading?

Is a major reason why there are not more BDA insiders posting on AVS due to the fact that they do not whish to have questions like this directed at them?

There may be examples of HD DVD PRG doing things, but I am curious about this situation...mainly because i found it a little insulting.
Perhaps Penton Man has lot more influence over Blu-ray insiders. I don't think his model of spreading BDA positions in Bluray.com only without any criticism is something that is constructive or desirable for the BDA. At least, Talk is still here...

Amir,

Please clear up your now infamous statement where you claimed BD50's were "science fiction" and spent many a days trying to convince all of us that they were... Was it that you truly believed it was not possible?

Also, what is the latest info on TL51's? Thanks

Amir,

Please clear up your now infamous statement where you claimed BD50's were "science fiction" and spent many a days trying to convince all of us that they were... Was it that you truly believed it was not possible?
My belief is as always was. That is easy to understand if you look at the totality of what I said, not one catchy phrase.

What I said was the BD-50 was extremely difficult to manufacture. So much so that the technical executive at the top replicator I spoke to used the above phrase to describe the degree of difficulty. Keep in mind that at that point, they could not even manufacture BD-25. He thought that they could eventually get there with single layer. But dual layer really scared them. And hence that phrase. Two months later (I think) I was on the panel at Home Theater Cruise where another replicator representative repeated the same thing that he did not see how anyone could manufacture BD-50. So you could say that no independent replicator believed that Sony could find a process to mass manufacture these discs.

What people miss is that in follow up posts, I and Alex both said that Sony would find a way to produce BD-50 last year as to make sure people don't accuse them of having a purely paper spec. And that they would spare no expense in getting there. I made this statement before the format was launched btw. And indeed, this is what happened. Sony went through incredible expense in their R&D lab in Shizoka to create these discs. If they were to price them according to what it cost them, there would not a single movie released in BD-50!

With yields at 20% and less, my statement then is as true now as it was then. DVD is all about mass manufacturing. No one really cares if you can make one out of five discs work. By that measure, a company like Warner would have to make 2.5 Billion discs, to ship the 500 million which they ship per year.

This business is never about prototypes and low volume manufacturing. Intel doesn't announce any CPU with yields this low even though I am sure they could advertise clock speeds for their CPUs well in excess of the fastest CPU they produce now. In case of BD, hybrid BD+DVDs were also something that seemed to work on paper but had to be discarded because they could not produce them.

Also, what is the latest info on TL51's? Thanks
The wheels of standardization keep turning. I believe we are getting pretty close to the spec being finalized. And no, there is still no word on backward compatibility until testing starts with media and drives.

No. It's not a reason at all.

But here's the crux of the real problem, though. If I explained the factual reasons for what happened, my post would get deleted.
PM me. If it's credible I'll post it

The wheels of standardization keep turning. I believe we are getting pretty close to the spec being finalized. And no, there is still no word on backward compatibility until testing starts with media and drives.

Will the bit-rate be raised to be competitive with the BR spec, or will it still be substantially lower?

See Alex Millians' latest post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11495319&postcount=194). He seems to often to have excellent inside sources. Too bad he is not registered as an insider since journalists with inside sources can be.

See Alex Millians' latest post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11495319&postcount=194). He seems to often to have excellent inside sources. Too bad he is not registered as an insider since journalists with inside sources can be.

I would certainly sponsor him to become an insider. He knows more factual information about BD format than I do at times. And he was the person to break the "project hydra" news among other useful data over the last few years.

People better read and try to digest every word he just said....

Alex also broke the info about Profile 1.1 date pushed back.

Can benes substantiate the claim about Traffic being upconverted 480p video?
The claim is that anyone who knows a bit or to about video is able to tell. But as usual there is no other 'evidence'.

I would certainly sponsor him to become an insider. He knows more factual information about BD format than I do at times. And he was the person to break the "project hydra" news among other useful data over the last few years.

People better read and try to digest every word he just said....

If you can explain 'the other half' to me I would be very happy. :D

My belief is as always was. That is easy to understand if you look at the totality of what I said, not one catchy phrase.The "totality" is that your legion of followers here kept repeatedly spamming every thread on this forum for months and months, claiming that BD50s would never be made. You, sir, are responsible for that. It is just one example of how your constant denigration of your competitors (with "information" that we can't verify or know) cheapens the debate at AVS. We can't challenge it, because the info is hidden, and you know damn well that BD insiders can't talk about these details either.

If they were to price them according to what it cost them, there would not a single movie released in BD-50!And here you continue with this ridiculous behavior. What are we supposed to do with this? Your supporters will repeat this endlessly on this forum. We can't challenge it, since we don't have the numbers. And the companies that know aren't in a position to release the numbers. Microsoft doesn't release all the details of every deal it makes. Do you feel this behavior is professional?

The wheels of standardization keep turning. I believe we are getting pretty close to the spec being finalized. And no, there is still no word on backward compatibility until testing starts with media and drives.Well why don't you tell us how hard it is to manufacture TL51 discs? How expensive will it be to make them? Since you seem to want BD insiders to give us actual numbers, please get an HD-DVD-affiliated replication company to release these estimates.

And he was the person to break the "project hydra" news ...*sigh* It never ends with you, does it? That wasn't "news". In fact it's a perfect example of ridiculous behavior cheapening the debate at AVS, with "hydra" brought up in every god****** thread. Now, you did not need to mention hydra here. Please tell all of us what the project is.

Can benes substantiate the claim about Traffic being upconverted 480p video?
The claim is that anyone who knows a bit or to about video is able to tell. But as usual there is no other 'evidence'.
benes is correct in his assertion. All evidence points to Traffic HD DVD being a 480P upconvert and I support benes' in asking Universal to re-master this title.

Lot's of grain (Looks like it's shot on 16mm), bad edge enhancement. Not a very good transfer to put it mildly. But still too much detail in there for it being an upconversion.

Amir, regarding the contamination of The Prestige discs, Paidgeek said this:

I did some checking on this issue and found out that this is an isolated case with a limited number of discs affected from 1 title. Apparently there was some sort of impurity that was mixed in with a batch of material used for this production run and it was simple a fluke. You Blu-ray library is safe.Do you have proof that this is not the case, and that it is indeed because "Apparently, Sony experimented with some new cover layer in an attempt to improve the cover layer yield"? As a Microsoft insider I don't understand how you're privy to Sony experimentation.

Also, why did it only affect some copies of The Prestige when the problem didn't make itself apparent for several months? I would've thought that the problem would be much more widespread if it was the result of an attempt to improve cover layer yield.

No. It's not a reason at all.

But here's the crux of the real problem, though. If I explained the factual reasons for what happened, my post would get deleted.

Please, by all means... if you can back up what you claim, post away.

I'll be the first to call the mods on any inappropriate post deletions if there is even an ounce of proof to whatever it is you claim.

...there doesn't really even have to be direct proof, let's just see if whatever you post can stand up to logical scrutiny.

What I said was the BD-50 was extremely difficult to manufacture.

Amirm, given this difficulty of BD-50 wouldn't this pretty much elminate pirated copies of BD-50 disks? Would this not be something looked upon as a advantage by the studios?

Now, you did not need to mention hydra here. Please tell all of us what the project is.
Actually that was part of the PRG's "Project Hydro", as in flushed away :p

To the BD folks, is it true that Dawn/Day will only have plain Jane DTS or DD audio? If so, why was this decision made considering the claim of high def video and audio by said format?

To the BD folks, is it true that Dawn/Day will only have plain Jane DTS or DD audio? If so, why was this decision made considering the claim of high def video and audio by said format?This is the insider tracking thread, you probably want to post that in the Insider Thread proper.

This is FAR FAR worse than the Fifth Element transfer that garnered so much outrage (and rightly so). And it is a much bigger problem than the misframing on Pirates1. I would like to see all of these problems fixed regardless of format. However this particular issue has been ignored for a very long time.

I'm not sure that this is a bigger problem than misframing on PoTC 1 disc. In fact, I would say PoTC misframing issue is a far bigger gaff given that these discs were supposed to be the crown jewels of Blu-ray releases to date (much like the pre-release expectations given TFE). But I otherwise, agree with your post.

Sorry but you are wrong. It was shot on 35mm according to IMDB. Both the 720p and 1080i broadcasts have more detail than the HD DVD. The trailer on the Studio Canal discs has more detail than the HD DVD. And I'm sure Studio Canals release will look far better than Universals when it comes out (if it hasn't already).

This is FAR FAR worse than the Fifth Element transfer that garnered so much outrage (and rightly so). And it is a much bigger problem than the misframing on Pirates1. I would like to see all of these problems fixed regardless of format. However this particular issue has been ignored for a very long time.Wait, how can a lack of detail (it definately has more detail than the DVD, I just checked) be compared to cutting off the head of the main characters??? Sure, it's an ugly presentation, but I don't really care, since it's a pretty ugly movie to start with.
I personally think the misframing problem on Pirates is unforgivable, a bad quality transfer is just an irritation, but then I still watch DVDs :)

Sorry but you are wrong. It was shot on 35mm according to IMDB. Both the 720p and 1080i broadcasts have more detail than the HD DVD. The trailer on the Studio Canal discs has more detail than the HD DVD. And I'm sure Studio Canals release will look far better than Universals when it comes out (if it hasn't already).

This is FAR FAR worse than the Fifth Element transfer that garnered so much outrage (and rightly so). And it is a much bigger problem than the misframing on Pirates1. I would like to see all of these problems fixed regardless of format. However this particular issue has been ignored for a very long time.

There were many great posts in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=898666) thread about demanding perfection and AVS being about science. And not about simply defending something because of a format war. I must say I agree completely.
The transfer quality IIRC was hotly disputed. You may disagree all you like. TFE was great in DVD. Traffic was not

Wait, how can a lack of detail (it definately has more detail than the DVD, I just checked) be compared to cutting off the head of the main characters??? Sure, it's an ugly presentation, but I don't really care, since it's a pretty ugly movie to start with.
I personally think the misframing problem on Pirates is unforgivable, a bad quality transfer is just an irritation, but then I still watch DVDs :)It can't be that bad, Pirates was out for months before anyone noticed the incorrect framing.

No. It's not a reason at all.



Keep believing that.

If you are going to be have an "Insider Status" here at AVS make sure you are thick skinned. It is expected. The ability to give and take from every side is what make the Insider Thread the place to be. Leave it to the readers to decide for themselves on how to digest the wealth of knowledge shared. Give them some credit. Not everyone here are ignorant console fanboys.


Running away to some place where NO ONE can objectively voice their opinion and get banned immediately for doing it is NOT the place to hide away to.

An AVS Industry Insider must be able to LISTEN to readers especially one with critical or opposing views. This is NOT the place where everyone is in a circle holding each other's hand and singing Kumbaya all the time.

I hesitate posting this given the heightened level of angst on both sides of the fence. What most irritates me are the people who don't own a given format and yet jump up and down about the other formats supposed shortcomings. So I see folks who don't own BD players griping about Profiles and folks who don't own HD DVD players complaining about TL51. I think it's obvious, neither set will be convinced to buy the other format.

Now if you own a BD player and are trying to find out about BD profiles, fair game. If you haven't bought a player and want to know if BD specs give it better performance, fair game.

I fully agree.

For certain insiders to run away to other forums where their opinions/information aren't contested is just silly.

Amir, we are glad you are still here.

Keep believing that.

If you are going to be have an "Insider Status" here at AVS make sure you are thick skinned. It is expected. The ability to give and take from every side is what make the Insider Thread the place to be. Leave it to the readers to decide for themselves on how to digest the wealth of knowledge shared. Give them some credit. Not everyone here are ignorant console fanboys.


Running away to some place where NO ONE can objectively voice their opinion and get banned immediately for doing it is NOT the place to hide away to.

An AVS Industry Insider must be able to LISTEN to readers especially one with critical or opposing views. This is NOT the place where everyone is in a circle holding each other's hand and singing Kumbaya all the time.Insiders are here to provide inside information and answer questions when they can, not to be format whipping boys or a means to gain cheap points for one one side or the other.

It's especially insulting when they all apparently give up plenty of their own personal time to post here, only to basically be called cowards for choosing not to do it any more.

I fully agree.

For certain insiders to run away to other forums where their opinions/information aren't contested is just silly.

Amir, we are glad you are still here.

Uh, wait a minute- isn't that essentially the course Amir has taken by only participating in the Insider thread? Let's try to apply the same standards to everyone, please.

We can't challenge it, since we don't have the numbers. And the companies that know aren't in a position to release the numbers. Microsoft doesn't release all the details of every deal it makes. Do you feel this behavior is professional?

I STRONGLY disagree with that. All other relevant optical replication had been made public EXCEPT for BD50. What are BD insiders soo afraid of? What would be resulted with making the cost of BD50?

Well why don't you tell us how hard it is to manufacture TL51 discs? How expensive will it be to make them? Since you seem to want BD insiders to give us actual numbers, please get an HD-DVD-affiliated replication company to release these estimates.

TL51 is not in the HD DVD logo spec. It is there to make BDA claim of more storage look stupid. How much it cost to produce a 4 layer 100GB Blu-ray disk?



please read the bold postings.

Insiders are here to provide inside information and answer questions when they can, not to be format whipping boys or a means to gain cheap points for one one side or the other.

It's especially insulting when they all apparently give up plenty of their own personal time to post here, only to basically be called cowards for choosing not to do it any more.
I'll certainly miss the participation of BD insiders, and hope they either return or others step in. I've personally learned a lot from listening to them here, and I expect things we've learned from each other here has helped make each format better.

Maybe it'll be an advantage for them to be able to listen to us, without us listeing to them ;).

Personally, I think HD DVD looks all the better the more sunlight it recieves.

Uh, wait a minute- isn't that essentially the course Amir has taken by only participating in the Insider thread? Let's try to apply the same standards to everyone, please.

I believe he did this after being asked by the mods.

With yields at 20% and less, my statement then is as true now as it was then. DVD is all about mass manufacturing. No one really cares if you can make one out of five discs work. By that measure, a company like Warner would have to make 2.5 Billion discs, to ship the 500 million which they ship per year.



http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=196808&postcount=2569

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=196808&postcount=2569

Which one has the accurate info?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=196808&postcount=2569

Instead of answering question on the BD50 yield. Paidgeek made typical BDA statement.

yeah DADC had an over 80% yield! Are DADC doing only BD50? The 80% yield was referring to what? the overall BD25 and BD50 yield? BD25 yield only? Or BD50 yield?

I don't know what the yields are at other plants, but DADC told me several months ago that they were getting very acceptable resuls at over 80%.

Yield numbers can change depending on the type of product being run, and many other factors, but main concern is whether or not the manufacture has been able to remove the mysteries about why one line might be getting better numbers than another. This indicates they have a good handle on the entire process and indeed, DADC reached this point some time ago.

Instead of answering question on the BD50 yield. Paidgeek made typical BDA statement.

yeah DADC had an over 80% yield! Are DADC doing only BD50? The 80% yield was referring to what? the overall BD25 and BD50 yield? BD25 yield only? Or BD50 yield?

Her is referring to this post by Dave: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11462586&postcount=3616

So I believe he is refering to BD50s, but that's not the issue, just pay attention how he words his response:

I don't know what the yields are at other plants, but DADC told me several months ago that they were getting very acceptable results at over 80%.

Yield numbers can change depending on the type of product being run, and many other factors, but main concern is whether or not the manufacture has been able to remove the mysteries about why one line might be getting better numbers than another.


Pay attention how he says that he doesn't know what yields are in other plants (this is typical defense mechanism - so he can backpaddle if asked about other plants as well as several months ago). Of course you will not be able to confirm anything because DADC is Sony of course and again they can say that they do 100% yields when other plants other than DADC have 10% yields. Knowing Sony from previous endeavours and how they treat their partners when they say anything bad, is that if a 3rd party replicator comes out again with 10% claims, Sony will say that they are not doing it right, sticking to that DADC claim. Who's right there?

and then he says:


This indicates they have a good handle on the entire process and indeed, DADC reached this point some time ago.


Which is completely irrelevant to his above statements.

So basically he told you/them that they managed to hit 80% at some point (that could've happen once or twice for all we know) but have not managed to maintain that yield, dropping to again unacceptable levels.

Handling the production is vastly questionable when you pay millions and millions for new production that should work pretty much without problems.

These type of statements are very obviously planned to do damage controls when there's clearly public information about DL50gb BD discs just being almost impossible to make without massive financial losses. And this is not said but only Dave, but was mentioned by PacificDisc I think in the Insider Thread and other replicator insiders.

If you read that statement again he did not answer directly. What's clear by his response btw, is that he basically CONFIRMS that there are problems in BD50gb production.

Btw, it is IMPOSSIBLE that he doesn't know what yield is in other replication lines have considering that they have only 8 and this is a hot issue. Especially when they are in charge of supplying many things to these companies anyway.

so happy we have two threads now

HD DVD fanboy drivel has already ruined this one :(

This business is never about prototypes and low volume manufacturing. Intel doesn't announce any CPU with yields this low even though I am sure they could advertise clock speeds for their CPUs well in excess of the fastest CPU they produce now. In case of BD, hybrid BD+DVDs were also something that seemed to work on paper but had to be discarded because they could not produce them.


Amir, if you forgive me for saying so, the BD50 claims is the biggest problem with credibility of detractors today. It doesn't seem to faze anyone making these claims that the top selling disks today are all BD50. In fact, the world is awash in BD50 disks everywhere you look. From 300, CR, Departed, PE, and practically any title that sold a reasonable volume (by HDM standards) you find that majority of them are BD50.

By my rough estimates, by # of disks alone, it appears this year (perhaps even SI), there are many more BD50 disks sold than all HD15+HD30 sold from what nielsen videoscan is telling us.

So when you make claims about manufacturability of BD50, it's not even a case of TSMC commenting on the feasibility of UMC's 65nm manufacturing, it's more like a software tools provider tied into TSMC commenting on the feasibility of UMC's 65nm manufacturing, the whole tone of your discussion the past 6 months is stunning from senior managament of any corporation.

I apologize if I offend you, but you must understand why some people find this not only unprofessional, but also lacking in the decorum that you claim to wish for this thread.

If only we picked apart every other insider's words so carefully. :rolleyes: Why don't you just ask him to clarify his remarks?

And it seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the ones making the accusations. Blu-ray is on the defense here. Innocent until proven guilty applies I think. How about all these outside parties who are claiming low yields actually provide some real evidence to back them up? Otherwise I think anyone can make up an accusation that can't be disproven. Even when they say its not true you still won't believe them so what else do you want? If they produced some chart with official numbers you will claim it fake. How exactly can they prove it to you short of letting you hang out at the factory for a few weeks?

Funny statement. But you know what, when a company is PROVEN to distribute rootkits, uses revenue to "prove" market share and more then 1 industry person involved in production of discs makes a statement that the 10% yields on BD50s are horrific in production, I have a tendency to not just say "oh all these guys accussing Sony are so mean and they should take all Blu-Ray fanboys to factories as a proof". The burden is on Sony and BDA as they need to show how exactly is this production cost effective for someone who will invest millions and millions in production lines.

There is a CLEAR reason why there is only 8 lines in production for BLu-Ray (if that). It is absolutely ridiculous to state that there are only so few because the demand is not there.

I don't really care what marketing and deceptive statements BDA, Sony and other BDA involved individuals spew. It doesn't change the facts. However I find it scary to say the least, that there are "consumers" (who actually buy this) who justify these misleading tactics.

If we are to believe BDA and these deceptions then in the USA PS3 would have great market share than Wii. Right?

Amir, if you forgive me for saying so, the BD50 claims is the biggest problem with credibility of detractors today. It doesn't seem to faze anyone making these claims that the top selling disks today are all BD50. In fact, the world is awash in BD50 disks everywhere you look. From 300, CR, Departed, PE, and practically any title that sold a reasonable volume (by HDM standards) you find that majority of them are BD50.

By my rough estimates, by # of disks alone, it appears this year (perhaps even SI), there are many more BD50 disks sold than all HD15+HD30 sold from what nielsen videoscan is telling us.

So when you make claims about manufacturability of BD50, it's not even a case of TSMC commenting on the feasibility of UMC's 65nm manufacturing, it's more like a software tools provider tied into TSMC commenting on the feasibility of UMC's 65nm manufacturing, the whole tone of your discussion the past 6 months is stunning from senior managament of any corporation.

I apologize if I offend you, but you must understand why some people find this not only unprofessional, but also lacking in the decorum that you claim to wish for this thread.

i appologise if my post offends you but why do you think people think that BD50 yield is so low and the cost is high. BECAUSE - no one come forward to expressly said other wise. We keep getting vague answers that can be interpreted in sooo many ways.

It is a good thing announcing that BD50 is not that expensive to do and that the yield is good.

So help me god that some credible insider or replicators and make a statement such as this.

"BD50 yield had been good at more than 80% since ** include a date** and continouly until now and will ONLY improve in the future."

"as per the cost of BD50, we can confidently confirm that our official public quote for the replication is not more than **Include a price here* per disk of the least order quantity. our BD50 disk cost was NEVER at $20 or even <>$40 as some had reported".

For christ sake give us the two quotes already so that we can put these to rest. see its done. waiting for Sony's response now!

If only we picked apart every other insider's words so carefully. :rolleyes: Why don't you just ask him to clarify his remarks?

And it seems to me that the burden of proof should be on the ones making the accusations. Blu-ray is on the defense here. Innocent until proven guilty applies I think. How about all these outside parties who are claiming low yields actually provide some real evidence to back them up? Otherwise I think anyone can make up an accusation that can't be disproven. Even when they say its not true you still won't believe them so what else do you want? If they produced some chart with official numbers you will claim it fake. How exactly can they prove it to you short of letting you hang out at the factory for a few weeks?


if the question was answered clearly and directly. there wont be issue wouldnt it. How difficult it is to type something like this?

"BD50 yield had been good at more than 80% since ** include a date ** and continouly until now and will ONLY improve in the future."

I think it's clear this thread should be deleted and we should use the old model thread exclusively for insider questions only.

if this should be the case - there is NO NEED whatsover to have the insider's thread. The news thread would be enough where we get info from CEs and studios without the chance to challenge or contest information given.

I think it's clear this thread should be deleted and we should use the old model thread exclusively for insider questions only.I agree.

We already have enough threads for insane anti-format ramblings.

I think it's clear this thread should be deleted and we should use the old model thread exclusively for insider questions only.
It's not going to stop regardless of what rules are set forth. Things seem to have reached fever pitch.

Amir, if you forgive me for saying so, the BD50 claims is the biggest problem with credibility of detractors today. It doesn't seem to faze anyone making these claims that the top selling disks today are all BD50. In fact, the world is awash in BD50 disks everywhere you look. From 300, CR, Departed, PE, and practically any title that sold a reasonable volume (by HDM standards) you find that majority of them are BD50.
Why would this prove anything about the yields? At 20% yield, all Sony has to do is make 5X the number and they get there. If I had said there was zero yield, you would have a point but I did not. So all this means is that Sony is losing a lot of money making these discs. At this scale, they can afford it. What they do when the market reaches 10 to 20% is the question.

By my rough estimates, by # of disks alone, it appears this year (perhaps even SI), there are many more BD50 disks sold than all HD15+HD30 sold from what nielsen videoscan is telling us.
Which also says nothing because the worldwide capacity for HD dvd is 100X of BD...

So when you make claims about manufacturability of BD50, it's not even a case of TSMC commenting on the feasibility of UMC's 65nm manufacturing, it's more like a software tools provider tied into TSMC commenting on the feasibility of UMC's 65nm manufacturing, the whole tone of your discussion the past 6 months is stunning from senior managament of any corporation.
What is astonishing is people believing the claims of BDA without an ounce of independent verification. Surely if you think I am biased to say that BD doesn’t work, that they are doubly biased to say it does.

Let me explain what is needed to put this to rest:

1. Yield numbers from an independent replicator. No one cares about what Sony/MEI say other than their PR company. We must see yield numbers from Cinram/Technicolor who are the primary replicators for Fox, Disney, etc. The only statement I have seen on the record was Jeff in the insider thread saying people would be shocked as to how low their (Cinram) yields are. Only to delete that statement a few hours later.

2. Fox/Disney/Warner manufacturing their BD-50 discs at some other plant than Sony further proving above.

3. Proper standard of yield computation followed rather than marketing. BDA companies have completely distorted this number, by measuring yields once the equipment achieves its peak function. This is not right. Yield must be measured from the time you turn on the machine, until you turn it off.

4. An independent expert visiting their plants and publishing a white paper. Indeed, I have suggested this as a way to put all of this to rest. If BDA is so sure that there is no problem here whatsoever, why not invite an expert to do this? I mean they know that this is a point that we go after. So if there is nothing to hide, let’s have an expert examine their plant, methodology, etc. They pay people to do surveys of PS3 users and BD, why not this?

I apologize if I offend you, but you must understand why some people find this not only unprofessional, but also lacking in the decorum that you claim to wish for this thread.
You are not offending me. But at same time, there is nothing unprofessional about what I state. We have incredible amount of insight into optical manufacturing. We publish a ton of optical media both for Xbox and for our software business. We have custom drives in Xbox 360. Both of these provides us with far more expertise in optical process and engineering than you give us credit.

Let me put this bluntly: There would be no format war if BD-50 had 80% yield and cycle time that was the same as DVD/HD DVD! Let me repeat that again. If what you all believe is true, there would be no format war. Yet there is.

Why? Because no studio would back HD DVD if they could get BD-50 discs for the same price as HD DVD-30. Fact is that it is not even close. There is a reason three major studios: Warner, Paramount and Universal back HD DVD with two exclusively so. They know the yield numbers, none of you do.

Please apply some sense of logic before believing the leader of your camp. Don’t ignore people telling you they have not even found BD-50 production capability let alone have it be this easy to manufacture. Take a look at claims like this from May 3, 2005 from BDA core founder, Panasonic: http://www.panasonic.net/blu-ray/news_release_050503/index.html

“The Blu-ray Disc line, which is based within the Panasonic Disc Manufacturing Corporation facility in Torrance, will begin full pilot production of single-layer BD-ROM discs by the end of May, and dual-layer BD-ROM discs in December.”

BD-50 disc production in December 2005? Then how come the format launched with BD-25 many months later? Tsuga-san is my good friend at Panasonic but really, it is claims like this that make us not believe what BDA/Paid, etc. say. We won’t be satisfied until we hear it from someone who doesn’t care if BD wins or not. Neither should you.

i appologise if my post offend you but why do you think people think that BD50 yield is so low and the cost is high. BECAUSE - no one come forward to expressly said other wise. We keep getting vague answers that can be interpreted in sooo many ways.

It is a good thing announcing that BD50 is not that expensive to do and that the yield is good.

So help me god that some credible insider of Sony and make a statement such as this.

"BD50 yield had been good at more than 80% since October 2006 and continouly until now and will ONLY improve in the future."

"as per the cost of BD50, we can confidently confirm that our official public quote for the replication is not more than $5 per disk of the least order quantity. our BD50 disk cost was NEVER at $20 or even <>$40 as some had reported".

For christ sake give us the two quotes already so that we can put these to rest. see its done. waiting for Sony's response now!

The facts are in front of us. Starting from 300, CR, PE, Departed, PotC, we can walk down the nielsen videoscan list of the top sellers and they are all BD50. Adding them up is relatively easy, I have no idea what the BD50 yield number is, but whatever it is, it seems that the current demand is easily met. Whatever the yield is, there's more BD50s sold than HD30+combos+HD15 sold today.

I do know however that for a typical ASIC, TSMC and UMC yields for their .18um used to be horrendously low, I also know that 8 months after the first .25um wafer rolled off their fab, their yields became respectable, I also know that within 16 months, the .18um yields were already mainstream and matched the .25um yields before them. Given similarities in material science, to pretend that a snapshot in time of any manufacturing of materials will extend into infinity doesn't make sense to me.

This is the way manufacturing has always proceeded, and I don't see anything different in either HD DVD combos or BD50 yields that would indicate they won't follow the same pattern established by sillicon wafers (in fact, the material science is a lot simpler to solve there than for silicon).

if the question was answered clearly and directly. there wont be issue wouldnt it. How difficult it is to type something like this?

"BD50 yield had been good at more than 80% since ** include a date ** and continouly until now and will ONLY improve in the future."Then ask the question in that format. The insiders are just guys posting answers to questions as they come up, not a marketing team writing press releases subject to intense scrutiny.

Imagine if every single one of your posts was put through the wringer, with every word, phrase, punctuation, and formatting choice examined for hidden meanings by those desperate to find fault with everything you say.

If you want a specific answer, put it in the question. If you don't get it, then ask for clarification. If you still don't get it, then assume they either can't or won't answer it in the way that you like and move on with your life. Kiss your partner, hug your children, pet your dog, and watch a movie, but don't spend the next 6 months of your life trying to squeeze an answer out of a guy on the internet.

BD-50 disc production in December 2005? Then how come the format launched with BD-25 many months later? Tsuga-san is my good friend at Panasonic but really, it is claims like this that make us not believe what BDA/Paid, etc. say. We won’t be satisfied until we hear it from someone who doesn’t care if BD wins or not. Neither should you.
The latest talking points? :rolleyes:

so happy we have two threads now

HD DVD fanboy drivel has already ruined this one :(

As have comments like this. Man, I can't believe that we couldn't stay civil for just a day. The BD insider ran away from the insider thread. What makes folks think other insiders would tolerate this kind of talk?

One last plea to get back to civil tone before some of us bail out and let the rest of you argue amongst yourself, negating any value this special thread might have....

The latest talking points? :rolleyes:
Thanks for the constructive comment :(.

As have comments like this. Man, I can't believe that we couldn't stay civil for just a day. The BD insider ran away from the insider thread. What makes folks think other insiders would tolerate this kind of talk?

One last plea to get back to civil tone before some of us bail out and let the rest of you argue amongst yourself, negating any value this special thread might have....
I find your characterizations to be un-civil. And disrespectful. "Ran away?" Nice.

Question to HD DVD insider
What is the current yield rate of a HD15 and a HD30?

HD DVD Insider Response:
HD15 Yield is x%, while HD30 Yield is x%

Question to Blu-ray Insider:
What is the current yield rate of a BD25 and a BD50?

BD Insider Answer:
BD25 Yield is x%, while BD50 Yield is x%

I don't see the problem in answering those questions, and if an insider refuses to answer or refute % claims, then it's obvious they are hiding something or the yields are simply too low to announce (i.e potentially damaging).

Another AVMS refugee.
You’re smart and you drink wine so it should...... pretty well be intuitive........just follow what Iceman II stated above.

Re: paidgeek
Keep in mind he is at least an executive level higher than the Amir, and you should do just fine. (That means that if you ask a question, it is not uncommon to not get an answer for days, as he's got a helluva alot of things on his plate in the real world)

Re: Me?
Ask paidgeek how difficult it is to reach me via cell phone and you’ll get an idea of what level I’m at.

Re: Talkstr8t ?
Let him tell you himself once he gets back from some show in Berlin.

Re: Kjack?
He’s on vacation ….where I’m still trying to go if my wife would get her act together with our dog and such.

Re: The blu-ray.com moderators?
They’re all good guys.

Re: The blu-ray forum membership ?
First rule of thumb is to try to help out other members. This is not a place for intellectual one-upmanship. This is a place for everyone to enjoy their format of choice.
Amir,

Is this post by Penton Man on BD.com forum true (specifically about Paid being at least one level higher up than you)? :p This was in response to a new member as to status of various insiders in that forum.

We won’t be satisfied until we hear it from someone who doesn’t care if BD wins or not. Neither should you.
Question: do you care if BD wins or not?

As have comments like this. Man, I can't believe that we couldn't stay civil for just a day. The BD insider ran away from the insider thread. What makes folks think other insiders would tolerate this kind of talk?

One last plea to get back to civil tone before some of us bail out and let the rest of you argue amongst yourself, negating any value this special thread might have....

I wouldn't blame any of ya for not posting, but in the insiders thread I think its important for insiders to understand the regular joes follow your lead to an extent...and posts making claims that "Sony doesn't care about the quality of their work because they don't use my codec" or "oh your copy of the Prestige is messed up...you really should just purchase it on my format" or ranking the hotness of anyone just doesn't belong in that thread. I believe those things are catalysts for the downward spiral

The facts are in front of us. Starting from 300, CR, PE, Departed, PotC, we can walk down the nielsen videoscan list of the top sellers and they are all BD50. Adding them up is relatively easy, I have no idea what the BD50 yield number is, but whatever it is, it seems that the current demand is easily met. Whatever the yield is.

when we fight over a format what points do we provide to defend a format or attack another format? yeah right BD50 is 'sufficient' because less 2mil Blu-ray disk were sold since BD was launched back in June 2006. Many of the disks are BD25. Even a 5% yield can enable them to meet us low demand

We crucify Paramount and DW because 'they ignored' the so called 2-1 sales lead that BD is having over HD DVD. We accused and still accusing of taking $150 bribe for that decision. We accused and still accusing their act as of ANTI CONSUMER. All of these tell us their move was not business wise.

We are now tackling the BD50 cost and yield issue to see if that were the reasons behind such Paramount and DW's decision. We also want to know that in order for Hidef enthusiast to safely invest in a viable format. A format that would tha feasible for studios and replicators to have long term investment in. All these contribute to whether BD will be the next optical format or UMD number 2. Please not that PS3 games does not need BD50.

I don't see the problem in answering those questions, and if an insider refuses to answer or refute % claims, then it's obvious they are hiding something or the yields are simply too low to announce (i.e potentially damaging).
What is the value of harranguing people in absentia? You know darn well that there are no BD insiders here. And even if they were, do you think they'd be stupid enough to be goaded into divulging proprietary information?

Ahhh, now I get; you're feeding the group psychosis.

What is the value of harranguing people in absentia? You know darn well that there are no BD insiders here. And even if they were, do you think they'd be stupid enough to be goaded into divulging proprietary information?
Actually, I think Talk is still here. But he is representing himself and not BDA according to his signature.

Question to HD DVD insider
What is the current yield rate of a HD15 and a HD30?

HD DVD Insider Response:
HD15 Yield is x%, while HD30 Yield is x%

Question to Blu-ray Insider:
What is the current yield rate of a BD25 and a BD50?

BD Insider Answer:
BD25 Yield is x%, while BD50 Yield is x%

I don't see the problem in answering those questions, and if an insider refuses to answer or refute % claims, then it's obvious they are hiding something or the yields are simply too low to announce (i.e potentially damaging).And if you get the answers to those questions, what then? What material impact will knowing the yield of BD-50s have?

Amir,

Is this post by Penton Man on BD.com forum true (specifically about Paid being at least one level higher up than you)? :p This was in response to a new member as to status of various insiders in that forum.
It was to me - I was the new member. I took it with a grain of salt. True or untrue, it is irrelevant.

Amir,

Is this post by Penton Man on BD.com forum true (specifically about Paid being at least one level higher up than you)? :p This was in response to a new member as to status of various insiders in that forum.

omg - paidgeek - penton man - kjack .. should have included talkstr8t there. paidgeek and exec higher than Amir? if that is true, it proves that higher exec level does not prove that you have more knowledge and the power to release information.

Kjack - the sigma marketing manager that claim to sell chips to both BD and HD DVD but all we here is Broadcom and MS and HD DVD. Check his post history here.

no offense to paidgeek, but at first by the way that he appears to take time to response to critical questions tells me that he need to consult other people for answers or atleast trying to get permission to dessiminate information.

talkstr8t? he should not have been given the 'insider' tag in the first place. Check his posts to see why.

Amir,

Is this post by Penton Man on BD.com forum true (specifically about Paid being at least one level higher up than you)? :p This was in response to a new member as to status of various insiders in that forum.
That is an inappropriate comment to make and shows lack of understanding on his part of how Microsoft and Sony work when it comes to corporate ladders.

True enough, Paid is a Senior VP at Sony whereas I am a VP at Microsoft. However, Microsoft runs a rather flat organization with less hierarchy than many companies its size. We also have very high standards for achieving VP status. I was a Vice President at a public company before coming to Microsoft yet it took me another 6 years to achieve the same title here. We routinely hire VPs from other companies and give them positions 2-3 levels below where I sit. And people working in my group routinely get VP offers/jobs at other companies. We probably have one tenth as many SVPs as any other large company like us does. And far less than any studio.

To give you a sense of what being a VP means here, I manage an organization that has about 330 full time employees and another 30 or so contractors. (When I used to be in Windows, my division had 1000 employees.) I am fairly certain Paid does not manage a group nearly as big. I am responsible for multiple product lines and manage all disciplines form product development and engineering to business development and marketing. So if I wanted to play PM’s game, I could say I outrank Paid. But I think it is rude and improper to make such comparisons.

when we fight over a format what points do we provide to defend a format or attack another format? yeah right BD50 is 'sufficient' because less 2mil Blu-ray disk were sold since BD was launched back in June 2006. Many of the disks are BD25. Even a 5% yield can enable them to meet us low demand

We crucify Paramount and DW because 'they ignored' the so called 2-1 sales lead that BD is having over HD DVD. We accused and still accusing of taking $150 bribe for that decision. We accused and still accusing their act as of ANTI CONSUMER. All of these tell us their move was not business wise.

We are now tackling the BD50 cost and yield issue to see if that were the reasons behind such Paramount and DW's decision. We also want to know that in order for Hidef enthusiast to safely invest in a viable format. A format that would tha feasible for studios and replicators to have long term investment in. All these contribute to whether BD will be the next optical format or UMD number 2. Please not that PS3 games does not need BD50.

We are all forming opinions based on incomplete information. On the surface, Katzenberg appeared to say that there was some financial incentive, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I've never said what paramount did was illegal or anti-consumer, I suspect, like Sirius signing some guy up, paying for exclusivity, these deals are the way hollywood is run.

Do I believe that MSFT paid Toshiba/HD DVD PG a chunk of cash or financial guarantees, I don't know.

Do I believe that Toshiba/HD DVD PG gave some financial incentives to Viacom along with some compensation for stop the stamped BoG BD50 disks from going out. I suspect strongly, but I don't know for sure.

Do I believe that there was not tens of thousands BoG50 BD50 disks already stamped and in some cases already mailed out to stores? I beleve the evidence speaks for itself. We have had people in Canada who have these disks.

Do I know what really happened? No.

Do I think there were financial incentives and guarantees that makes it lucrative for Viacom/Paramount to do this deal? Yes.

Do I think it's illegal, unethical for this to happen? No.

Do I believe that people on both sides are trying to milk each other's weaknesses to maximum degree, in some cases distorting half truths, twisting facts to advance their cause? Sure. It's happening on both sides.

The latest talking points? :rolleyes:

-were they only capable of penetrating some of the thick skulls around here.

What is the value of harranguing people in absentia? You know darn well that there are no BD insiders here. And even if they were, do you think they'd be stupid enough to be goaded into divulging proprietary information?

Ahhh, now I get; you're feeding the group psychosis.

huh? we are still talking about yield and cost right? BD25 and HD DVD cost had been made public long time ago. making BD50 cost public is a ' stupid act ' divulging proprietary information ?

okay - i want to master and replicate my grandmother's 80th birthday party video into 1000 BD50 disks. I want to know the cost per disk and the mastering. Now can i get the quote?

Question: do you care if BD wins or not?

I do. That's why I said we need to have an independent voice to settle the difference of opinion....

How can you say that knowing the yield rates of BD25, BD50, HD15 and HD30 production is not important?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if yield rates are low, wouldn't that mean that you're losing money on each disc sold, or at least not making much of a profit?

If that trend doesn't reverse when the market for HDM matures, we're going to have a fairly substantial problem on our hands.

And if you get the answers to those questions, what then? What material impact will knowing the yield of BD-50s have?

We will know the real state of things for production and mass adoption man. It means that no sensible business will go and invest in blu-ray knowing that they will have 10% yield when HD DVD hits 95% on DL30gb discs and takes much much less money and hassle to upgrade their existing equipment.

That's what impact. For a consumer, it means that studios will over time have less ability and will to lower the media prices if they have to pay replicators more money. Simply business: if a replicator has 10% yield and majority of Blu-Ray market wants to publish on them and the replicator needs charge instead of $1 (example) but $2 per disc that's double. This will directly affect studio pricing and consumer.

Sure, you don't see that now because subsidizing disc manufacturing is not a huge amount of money because the market for HDM is very small. 2million discs so far (and not all are DL50) that's couple of million dollars to produce, say the yield is 10%, so the expense for these discs would about 10 or so million dollars. So Sony for example would have to cover only a few million to make these production problems transparent. That's peanuts when you are inclined to do this in order to appear that you have not lied before.

Amir, thank you for your continued patience, I sometimes don't know why you bother, it's true. You know full well when you're being, well, provocative, but that doesn't excuse the disrespect that you (and many other insiders) are consistantly shown. Similarly, I'm sure many that post here supposedly in support of you come across as equally shrill. I've certainly been guilty of polluting the insider thread with comment asides and the occasional attempt at levity, but there are many that read these threads with a great deal of interest and a desire for respectful discourse.

You took a break for less than 24 hours, Paid's gone for longer than that. I suggest to several that are hammering their points to the point of beligerance that they too take a break, turn it down a notch, and look for a bigger perspective here.

I think, at the same time, while many of the BD players are AWOL that (respectfully) Amir you can avoid pouring the rest of your gasoline on the fire. There are many HD DVD related questions that I think could be addressed without reference to BD. I for one would very much like to hear about looking forward with this format, any gains made against DVD, suggestions for improving existing players and getting new CE companies involved. In other words, the positive tone of the Insiders themselves (as justifiably frustrated as they may be), along with toning down the rhetoric and ignoring those that don't do the same that you may very well agree with, might do wonders for this section of AVS.

A proposal for all in this thread - next time you post, no more emoticons. Be clear, consise, and avoid the backhanded attack softened with the smiley face. If you think your post will be taken the wrong way, edit it to be clear, don't just slap on a smile and hope that it skates through.

I mean this post with the utmost respect, and here's hoping that these latest attacks on this sibling thread of the venerable Insiders conversation can continue in the spirit that the mods have meant it to.

Thanks for reading.

I find your characterizations to be un-civil. And disrespectful. "Ran away?" Nice.

You misunderstood the characterization. I meant that he felt uncomfortable, not afraid. How I feel reading these posts just about now.

Really Pepar. What happened to you? I used put you pretty high up as far as asking good questions in BD insider and not making comments like this. Next thing I know, you are in bd.com and see posts like this. Is there a bug or something the inflicts us to become this way all of a sudden? Please go back and bring the high style that you used to have just a couple of days ago....

I hesitate posting this given the heightened level of angst on both sides of the fence. What most irritates me are the people who don't own a given format and yet jump up and down about the other formats supposed shortcomings. So I see folks who don't own BD players griping about Profiles and folks who don't own HD DVD players complaining about TL51. I think it's obvious, neither set will be convinced to buy the other format.

Now if you own a BD player and are trying to find out about BD profiles, fair game. If you haven't bought a player and want to know if BD specs give it better performance, fair game.

I disagree, I am about to receive my very first BD's and can't play them until I own a player. That makes the BD Profiles a very real issue for me. However, I do agree that if one jumps on a bandwagon simply for the sake of bashing something, that's merely juvenile behavior.

How can you say that knowing the yield rates of BD25, BD50, HD15 and HD30 production is not important?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if yield rates are low, wouldn't that mean that you're losing money on each disc sold, or at least not making much of a profit?

If that trend doesn't reverse when the market for HDM matures, we're going to have a fairly substantial problem on our hands.I imagine the studios already know what the yield and cost to produce various discs are, which is why I don't see why it should matter if the consumer doesn't.

Do you demand to know how much the baker pays for flour when you buy a loaf of bread? Do you demand that he proves that he gets a sufficient number of bags for every field of wheat?

And just to show that I am fair. I actually DON'T think Warner is obligated to replace any of those "bobbed" masters like Lethal Weapon or Perfect Storm as was just mentioned in the Insider's Thread. And I own 3 of those titles I think.

FWIW -- According to either Ben Waggoner or FilmMixer (can't remember which), the problem was not bobbing, it was vertical filtering. This was reported in the insider thread.

I imagine the studios already know what the yield and cost to produce various discs are, which is why I don't see why it should matter if the consumer doesn't.

Do you demand to know how much the baker pays for flour when you buy a loaf of bread? Do you demand that he proves that he gets a sufficient number of bags for every field of wheat?

Uhm, if I am talking to the baker about how sustainable his business is (which is what is being debated) ........... then yes?

I imagine the studios already know what the yield and cost to produce various discs are, which is why I don't see why it should matter if the consumer doesn't.

Do you demand to know how much the baker pays for flour when you buy a loaf of bread? Do you demand that he proves that he gets a sufficient number of bags for every field of wheat?

No, but look at this way. If he's the only baker in town, you better believe it that I will be concerned as that guarantees that my bread prices will eventually go up.

I don't know if you're understanding the scope of this. If the cost to produce a BD50 is too high (because yields are too low) then that means when HDM matures, a studio will not be able to produce enough discs (or the disc will have to carry a higher price tag than it warrants).

If yields improve over time, that's not a problem. Unfortunately, we have absolutely no idea. For all we know, they may max out at 50%. I highly doubt that is acceptable to a studio who wants to, say, ship 1 million discs of "Title A".

If the BDA is covering the cost of production, this isn't something they can maintain long-term once HDM gets bigger.

huh? we are still talking about yield and cost right? BD25 and HD DVD cost had been made public long time ago. making BD50 cost public is a ' stupid act ' divulging proprietary information ?

okay - i want to master and replicate my grandmother's 80th birthday party video into 1000 BD50 disks. I want to know the cost per disk and the mastering. Now can i get the quote?

For a thousand bucks, your grandma can watch for a hundred ;)

huh? we are still talking about yield and cost right? BD25 and HD DVD cost had been made public long time ago. making BD50 cost public is a ' stupid act ' divulging proprietary information ?

okay - i want to master and replicate my grandmother's 80th birthday party video into 1000 BD50 disks. I want to know the cost per disk and the mastering. Now can i get the quote?
That's just silly. As is the whole argument over Whiskey Tango Foxtrot it costs to make the discs. What would it change if you knew? Magically, the people who are buying BD are going to stop or slow down? And for HD-DVD buyers, where is the cost savings? Aren't quite a few more expensive than the BD equivalent?

How can you say that knowing the yield rates of BD25, BD50, HD15 and HD30 production is not important?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if yield rates are low, wouldn't that mean that you're losing money on each disc sold, or at least not making much of a profit?

If that trend doesn't reverse when the market for HDM matures, we're going to have a fairly substantial problem on our hands.


The longer this goes on, the bigger the issue this becomes. The sales of 300 opened a lot of peoples eyes. 250,000 copies (combined sales) is quite a lot. With 160,000 being BD50's, how much did it cost Sony to subsidize those sales? If Sony stopped the subsidy, what would the cost be to Warner? Was this a deciding factor in Paramounts decision? The Transformers movie will most likely be the #1 selling disc this year if it was released on dual formats. Now that it will only be released on HD DVD, how many copies will it sell? How many players will it sell since it is only available on HD DVD? When it streets, that will be a VERY interesting week for Videoscan numbers for sure.

Regardless if people want to admit it or not, the BD50 yield issue is a problem. Right now it isn't a big deal because demand is pathetically low compared to DVD. But what happens when a million discs are needed for multiple titles? Who's going to pay the bill for all the lost discs with low yields? The studios? Hell no, it will be the consumers.

Didn't Sony give away half a million copies of Casino Royale with the PAL PS3s? They can't be having that much trouble with high production numbers if they were churning out half a million free discs along side games and everything else in March.

That's just silly. As is the whole argument over Whiskey Tango Foxtrot it costs to make the discs. What would it change if you knew? Magically, the people who are buying BD are going to stop or slow down? And for HD-DVD buyers, where is the cost savings? Aren't quite a few more expensive than the BD equivalent?


we want to know if BD is a sustainable optical format business when it comes to movie. We want to be responsible when we advise people to go BD. We do not want them to end up with an expensive player with a UMD format. It has already been over a year since BD was launched. why is the yield still at 40% for Sony the main replicator and 10% for the rest. Why would someone pay millions for something with 10% yield to start with? are we going to depend on Sony when FOX, Disney and Sony Pictures want to sale 20mil BDs per title comes Christmas 07?

Regardless if people want to admit it or not, the BD50 yield issue is a problem. Right now it isn't a big deal because demand is pathetically low compared to DVD. But what happens when a million discs are needed for multiple titles? Who's going to pay the bill for all the lost discs with low yields? The studios? Hell no, it will be the consumers.
And you seriously believe if and when a million discs are needed for multiple titles, the yield would stay at whatever it is today :confused:

Technology doesn't improve ?

Come on now.

we want to know if BD is a sustainable optical format business when it comes to movie. We want to be responsible when we advise people to go BD. We do not want them to end up with an expensive player with a UMD format. It has already been over a year since BD was launched. why is the yield still at 40% for Sony the main replicator and 10% for the rest. Why would someone pay millions for something with 10% yield to start with? are we going to depend on Sony when FOX, Disney and Sony Pictures want to sale 20mil BDs per title comes Christmas 07?
Or when Blu-ray wins the war with supposedly higher capacity BD-50 discs, only to switch to BD-25 once the war is over giving us less capacity than HD-30. Sustenability and scalability is of paramount importance for the next gen optical format (pun intended), unless you want that format to remain niche for videophiles.

And you seriously believe if and when a million discs are needed for multiple titles, the yield would stay at whatever it is today :confused:

Technology doesn't improve ?

Come on now.

it has been a year since BD was launched. The first BD line was istalled WAY BACK in 2005. It is now September 2007!

...ah,well, worth a shot.

Good night all.

I imagine the studios already know what the yield and cost to produce various discs are, which is why I don't see why it should matter if the consumer doesn't.

Do you demand to know how much the baker pays for flour when you buy a loaf of bread? Do you demand that he proves that he gets a sufficient number of bags for every field of wheat?

Nope, but I will drive out of my way to get a Dr. Pepper made with real sugar instead of corn syrup and the only reason I need to drive out of my way is because the cost of using sugar in large batches is prohibitive.

The yields of BD50s could have a direct impact on the content available, most particularly to Blu-ray exclusive consumers. Imagine it is 2008 and BD Profile 2.0 is out and stable Warner is now adding IME to their Blu-ray releases. The Dark Knight is coming out on HD DVD and Blu-ray and since the IME on Batman Begins was so popular Warner is inclined to add IME to both releases. The HDM media market has grown in the last year and Warner expects to sell between 500,000 and 750,000 HD DVDs and about the same amount on BD.

Warner comes up with a nice 1080p VC-1 transfer that takes up about 21 gigs and then the IME and extras take up another 5 gigs. The HD DVD is pressed on an HD30/DVD9 Combo like most Warner Date and Days. BD50 facilities are swamped and yields are crappy so it will cost Warner $4 per BD50 (made up number) or they can just drop the IME (it didn’t hurt 300 BD sales) and publish The New Batman Film on a BD25. That impacts the average Blu-ray fan and is a direct result of yield numbers so yes there is a reason that yield numbers would be important to consumers.

That's just silly. As is the whole argument over Whiskey Tango Foxtrot it costs to make the discs. What would it change if you knew?

Well, if I am a studio it changes everything if I suddenly find my subsidies cut and awaken to the true cost of pressing the required number of BD50 media for a major title with a 20% yield.

Look at it from a studio's perspective and understand why they would want to sell their titles on a media that is cheaper to manufacture.

Magically, the people who are buying BD are going to stop or slow down?

Not the issue here at all. The studios want to sell their HD media as profitably as they possibly can. The bigger the market becomes, the more money a studio loses in pressing media which has a cost equal or greater to HD DVD media, but with lower yields.

And for HD-DVD buyers, where is the cost savings? Aren't quite a few more expensive than the BD equivalent?

Cost of production rarely correlates to retail price. This issue has nothing at all to do with consumer costs. Consumer costs are set at what the market is willing to pay. There is not a lot of wiggle room in this market for upward pricing.

Yields (the issue being discussed here) are relevant to manufacturing costs, as lower yields will cost studios more money to produce the required amount of discs.

The studios in turn don't always have the luxury of passing on the extra expense to consumers because they simply can not price an optical disc beyond what the market will bear.

...ah,well, worth a shot.

Good night all.

niters - sweet dreams ;)

The longer this goes on, the bigger the issue this becomes. The sales of 300 opened a lot of peoples eyes. 250,000 copies (combined sales) is quite a lot. With 160,000 being BD50's, how much did it cost Sony to subsidize those sales? If Sony stopped the subsidy, what would the cost be to Warner? Was this a deciding factor in Paramounts decision? The Transformers movie will most likely be the #1 selling disc this year if it was released on dual formats. Now that it will only be released on HD DVD, how many copies will it sell? How many players will it sell since it is only available on HD DVD?
Well, aren't these questions for an ace reporter? ;)

The longer this goes on, the bigger the issue this becomes. The sales of 300 opened a lot of peoples eyes. 250,000 copies (combined sales) is quite a lot. With 160,000 being BD50's, how much did it cost Sony to subsidize those sales? If Sony stopped the subsidy, what would the cost be to Warner? Was this a deciding factor in Paramounts decision? The Transformers movie will most likely be the #1 selling disc this year if it was released on dual formats. Now that it will only be released on HD DVD, how many copies will it sell? How many players will it sell since it is only available on HD DVD? When it streets, that will be a VERY interesting week for Videoscan numbers for sure.

Regardless if people want to admit it or not, the BD50 yield issue is a problem. Right now it isn't a big deal because demand is pathetically low compared to DVD. But what happens when a million discs are needed for multiple titles? Who's going to pay the bill for all the lost discs with low yields? The studios? Hell no, it will be the consumers.

Dave,

A few questions.

It seems to me that we may be a few years away from individual titles selling in the millions for either format. Do you get the feeling that the BDA can and will resolve the yield problems by then?

Why wouldn't studios simply switch to BD25 until the BD50 issues were resolved if Sony/BDA stopped subsidizing them? There is only a 5GB difference between BD25 and HD30, and it seems like HD30 is more than enough for most movies.

Will BD50 yields even matter to Warner if they make the switch to TotalHD discs? It seems to me that Warner will head in this direction in 2008 unless they make a move to one format over the other.

Previously you mentioned Paramount's concerns with replication costs (I am assuming you are referring to BD50 costs) as a major concern for them going HD DVD exclusive, yet they released more titles on BD25 discs than BD50 discs. Not one Paramount release had a space eating lossles track, and it seems to me if they stuck with no lossless with a VC-1 or AVC encode, they would have plenty of space on a BD25. Do you know why this was not an acceptable solution for them?

Thanks,
ack

And you seriously believe if and when a million discs are needed for multiple titles, the yield would stay at whatever it is today :confused:

Technology doesn't improve ?

Come on now.

If you are a studio, are you willing to effectively place a mega million dollar bet on that assumption?

Technology improves on the whole, but it also regularly reaches its limits under any given architecture.

we want to know if BD is a sustainable optical format business when it comes to movie. We want to be responsible when we advise people to go BD. We do not want them to end up with an expensive player with a UMD format. It has already been over a year since BD was launched. why is the yield still at 40% for Sony the main replicator and 10% for the rest. Why would someone pay millions for something with 10% yield to start with? are we going to depend on Sony when FOX, Disney and Sony Pictures want to sale 20mil BDs per title comes Christmas 07?
sharpyie, that is the most sensible thing i've read in the last two hours. practically speaking though, you do know that you will probably never get that information, don't you?

practically speaking though, you do know that you will probably never get that information, don't you?

And if I am a studio, and that information is hidden from me, I am getting off right there and then.

The BDA trumpets and spins anything that can possibly be made into a positive "talking point" for their side. If they go silent about something like this, I can't imagine a bigger flag that's a deeper shade of red.

If you are a studio, are you willing to effectively place a mega million dollar bet on that assumption?
Well, if your characterization is correct, haven't studios done just that? And if so, what do they know that you don't?

Technology improves on the whole, but it also regularly reaches its limits under any given architecture.
And you know that that the case here? Or did you just toss that out and hope somebody bought it? :)

The Transformers movie will most likely be the #1 selling disc this year if it was released on dual formats. Now that it will only be released on HD DVD, how many copies will it sell? How many players will it sell since it is only available on HD DVD?

Dave, I think that "Transformers" could have easily been the #1 title if it was dual-format. That said, Spiderman 3 grossed more money domestically than " Transformers" did. Don't you think the release of this movie, along with the boxset, has the potential to sell players as well?

In addition, if you look at the Top 10 grossing movies of 2007 (to date, domestic), Blu-Ray will have access to 7 of those movies with 5 being exclusive titles. HD DVD will have access to 5 of those movies with 3 of them being exclusive. If you are talking about content selling players (which I believe to be a very important factor in the format war) wouldn't Blu-Ray have the advantage?

And you know that that the case here? Or did you just toss that out and hope somebody bought it? :)
If he has read my posts, maybe he does. let me give you a taste.

Plastic must cool before the disc is shipped. HD DVD and DVD use 0.6mmm discs which by laws of physics cools much faster than 1.1mm substrate in BD. This is why cycle times are much longer for BD. Longer cycle time means fewer discs per hour. Note that even BDA doesn't dispute the longer cycle times.

I can go on but this one example alone should show you limits of their solution....

The BDA trumpets and spins anything that can possibly be made into a positive "talking point" for their side. If they go silent about something like this, I can't imagine a bigger flag that's a deeper shade of red.
Come on, quit whining. Both sides are whipping up the faithful and looking for any advantage real or IMAGINED. Don't you feel manipulated? Crikeys, it's a piece of A/V gear. Let's get some perspective. :)

sharpyie, that is the most sensible thing i've read in the last two hours. practically speaking though, you do know that you will probably never get that information, don't you?

i know :o but i like Lorenzo's Oil and I am a determine guy ! :)

Well, if your characterization is correct, haven't studios done just that? And if so, what do they know that you don't?




No they haven't actually. With the market for HDM being 0.2% and 3 million HDM copies sold and you take in consideration that Sony is subsidizing production of the media for Blu-Ray, we can say that studios right now have zero risk and 100% benefit as they are priced the media through the roof. Also, considering that we have been only a year into real HDM, all is testing. Paramount's decision comes as no surprise. They were most likely denied subsidazation costs and switched. Simple as that.

Here let me give you a hypothetical scenario:

Let's say Paramount saw an opportunity to make good money with Transformers. They were not covered subsidized costs for BD discs and they've decided to release Transformers as a HDDVD/DVD instead of SD DVD. Here comes production numbers. If this is the case for example, it would be obvious why BDA couldn't keep them. They will need to print millions and millions of discs to cover this. Add to that Toshiba most likely told them, you know what we will cover any expenses of returns you might have financially, Paramount's decision would be a no-brainer. 2 birds with one stone no need for multiple SKUs. Just some food for thought.

You can be rest assured that once they have to publish millions of copies for one title they will most definitely have this in mind. Other studios are most likely still leveraging the benefits of small market, higher prices they sell for and subsidization costs.

Come, year end, we will most definitely see a differnet tune from BD studios if nothing changes. All we have to do is wait and see.


And you know that that the case here? Or did you just toss that out and hope somebody bought it? :)

He is talking about technology in general , as the poster before him questioned. This is absolutely true, every technology reaches it's limits.

Question to HD DVD insider
I don't see the problem in answering those questions, and if an insider refuses to answer or refute % claims, then it's obvious they are hiding something or the yields are simply too low to announce (i.e potentially damaging).

I don't belive you can infer that...You would get no such info from my company about any of our processes regardless of the news was good or bad. We are jointly owned by one of the largest corporations in the world (Japanese company) and by another large Japanese company and although we operate pretty much on or own they send the message down that we don't discuss our business failures or successes (of course we are privately held...so no public financial reporting is necessary).

BTW...I don't mean to imply that I am in any way in a related field to what we're discussing...the company I would for certainly is not and couldn't be much farther away from technology...

Well, if your characterization is correct, haven't studios done just that? And if so, what do they know that you don't?

Paramount/Dreamworks jumping ship is the exact opposite of what you suggest. That's not making a multi million dollar bet that the BD50 media will scale according to Sony's promises... that is a vote of no confidence that the BD50 media will scale according to Sony's promises.

And you know that that the case here? Or did you just toss that out and hope somebody bought it? :)

You missed the point again. No one knows what will happen, that's why a studio would not want to gamble their future in HD media by assuming that the technology will just scale according to Sony's promises, or on faith.

Whether or not the BD50 manufacturing tech will smooth out over time, or if that technology has reached an impasse is completely unknown, and that's why it's a risk for any studio to go with it over a proven technology with already acceptable yields.

Paidgeek over at blu-ray.com indicated he's heard Sony's BD50 yields are 80%. And Amir & others indicate Sony's BD50 yields are 40%. Amir has also said:
3. Proper standard of yield computation followed rather than marketing. BDA companies have completely distorted this number, by measuring yields once the equipment achieves its peak function. This is not right. Yield must be measured from the time you turn on the machine, until you turn it off.
Call it a crazy idea - but could *both* of them be telling the truth? Since built, yields are 40%, but currently achieving 80% yields?

Come on, quit whining. Both sides are whipping up the faithful and looking for any advantage real or IMAGINED. Don't you feel manipulated? Crikeys, it's a piece of A/V gear. Let's get some perspective. :)

Listen friend, you are going a bit off the rails with all of your "stop whining" and your emoticon jabs tonight.

lol,

Paidgeek over at blu-ray.com indicated he's heard Sony's BD50 yields are 80%. And Amir & others indicate Sony's BD50 yields are 40%. Amir has also said:

Call it a crazy idea - but could *both* of them be telling the truth? Since built, yields are 40%, but currently achieving 80% yields?

What Amir means is measuring yield from when you turn on the machine at the beginning of the day, not from when it was first installed.

If he has read my posts, maybe he does. let me give you a taste.

Plastic must cool before the disc is shipped. HD DVD and DVD use 0.6mmm discs which by laws of physics cools much faster than 1.1mm substrate in BD. This is why cycle times are much longer for BD. Longer cycle time means fewer discs per hour. Note that even BDA doesn't dispute the longer cycle times.

BTW, I read that in your posts - some time ago. :)

I can go on but this one example alone should show you limits of their solution....
The context was yields and the OP was opining that they may not improve as "(technology) also regularly reaches its limits under any given architecture." But I'll go with it; it's stipulated that BD has a longer cycle time. Are you implying that they will "hit a wall" production-wise at some near point in time due to cooling times?

Paidgeek over at blu-ray.com indicated he's heard Sony's BD50 yields are 80%. And Amir & others indicate Sony's BD50 yields are 40%. Amir has also said:

Call it a crazy idea - but could *both* of them be telling the truth? Since built, yields are 40%, but currently achieving 80% yields?

No..Paidgeek did not specifically say that their yields are 80%. You need to develop some critical thinking skill and be logical to read BR Fud talk.

Here.. I've already addreessed Paidgeek's post, that we all agree is very clear what it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11497080&postcount=50

Come, year end, we will most definitely see a differnet tune from BD studios if nothing changes. All we have to do is wait and see.
I'm with you on that. This can't continue. I just can't imagine either side folding up their tents . . and answering to shareholders.

I fixed your typo for you.

Wow the low-blows keep on coming. Any chance of this discussion remaining civil? We wouldn't want to chase off the insiders; it's 2 in the morning where I am, watching a stable network and Amir's posts are the highlight of this dull work day for me.

I fixed your typo for you.

Please since you are so concerned with presenting facts. List the HDDVD FUD talk please. Show me the facts that were published by HD DVD Group that were not true. I'm sick and tired from hearing Blu-Ray fanboy kids running around yelling HD DVD FUD when they don't even know what they are refering too.

Please.

Umm, wow. How about reading just about every post from Mr. Amir? For starters.

Heres an old one to get you started:
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=718689

And just read the new ones as you go.


What you posted it something that has been THE ONLY point of discussion and it boils down to the fact whether or not VC1 has improved 30% or less within a year.

And this basically does very little for Blu-Ray as it is mostly for HD DVD authoring and how effective VC1 codec is. FUD means fear, uncertainty and doubt, neither of which was involved even if VC1 hasn't improved 30% over the course of the year. Btw, this is not lying to consumers or misleading, this is just a piece of information that is relevant on technical merits to authors and industry experts unlike Sony's statements where they for example avoid discussing the inability that NONE of the players will be able to fully utilizied upcoming BD titles. Hmm, let me think about this.

You people just quote the most ridiculous examples. Please be serious and post something that has relevance. I don't even where to start with Sony and BDA FUD. It's just so overwhelmingly present but I'll let you first show me backup for your HD DVD FUD thing before I say anything since you are the ones repeating like a broken record the HD DVD FUD line.

Paidgeek over at blu-ray.com indicated he's heard Sony's BD50 yields are 80%. And Amir & others indicate Sony's BD50 yields are 40%. Amir has also said:

Call it a crazy idea - but could *both* of them be telling the truth? Since built, yields are 40%, but currently achieving 80% yields?

Paidgeek is a senior VP of Sony corp's subsidiary - Sony pictures. He has an obligation to say what is best for Sony.

We on the other hand have an independent journalist claiming that the current Sony BD50 yield is 40% (agreeing on Amir's figure) and that the yield for non Sony BD lines is amazingly low at only 10%.

I can say stuff like that because I have not drank either kool-aid.

You can :rolleyes: and call people "whiners" because you don't drink (red) kool-aid, but it seems you can't live up to the standards you apply to others...

Re:

[QUOTE=pepar;11497370]I find your characterizations to be un-civil. And disrespectful.

OK Mr. civil and respectful. How about you take it easy now? :)

I can say stuff like that because I have not drank either kool-aid. Both sides are guilty guilty guilty, yet both whine incessantly about the other. :cool:

That's not necessarily true. I support HD DVD exclusively right now, but I plan to go format neutral and I hold both sides to the same standard. They do both pay off corporate partners and make back room deals. They both skew numbers in their favor and they both make ridiculous claims.

Still I give Sony credit for doing the right thing with The Fifth Element and I'm mad at Universal for not doing the same thing with Traffic. I think some of the things Disney is trying to do with BD-J are neat and I think it’s great that some BDs have multiple lossless tracks. Only a Blu-ray fanboy would deny the fact that HD DVD’s finished spec means that those BD “innovations” are either already done or moot in the HD DVD world. Warner and Universal are already doing with HDi what Disney is trying to do with BD-J and HD DVDs mandatory spec means that multiple lossless tracks would be a waste of space.

One can favor one format and still switch into unbiased mode. I also think that the FUD and BS from the BDA is MUCH thicker; HD DVD does not “call all cars” the way the BDA does when things don’t go their way. The Blockbuster thing sucked and HD DVD stressed the facts of the BB press release, but they didn’t make announcements that equate to BS. Say the way the BDA did with the Paramount announcement; Fox rolling out their BD release list for the third time since January and Disney reminding people about their 2008 releases. It’s possible no one will see most of the BDs (in 2007) that Fox or Disney announced in the wake of the Paramount announcement and in the meantime Blades of Glory HD DVDs are playing across America. One announcement has already produced results and the other one won’t mean squat for months if ever.

That's not necessarily true. I support HD DVD exclusively right now, but I plan to go format neutral and I hold both sides to the same standard. They do both pay off corporate partners and make back room deals. They both skew numbers in their favor and they both make ridiculous claims.

Still I give Sony credit for doing the right thing with The Fifth Element and I mad at Universal for not doing the same thing with Traffic. I think some of the things Disney is trying to do with BD-J are neat and I think it’s great that some BDs have multiple lossless tracks. Only a Blu-ray fanboy would deny the fact that HD DVD’s finished spec means that those BD “innovations” are either already done or moot in the HD DVD world. Warner and Universal are already doing with HDi what Disney is trying to do with BD-J and HD DVDs mandatory spec means that multiple lossless tracks would be a waste of space.

One can favor one format and still switch into unbiased mode. I also think that the FUD and BS from the BDA is MUCH thicker; HD DVD does not “call all cars” the way the BDA does when things don’t go their way. The Blockbuster thing sucked and HD DVD stressed the facts of the BB press release, but they didn’t make announcements that equate to BS. Say the way the BDA did with the Paramount announcement; Fox rolling out their BD release list for the third time since January and Disney reminding people about their 2008 releases. It’s possible no one will see any of the BDs that Fox or Disney announced in the wake of the Paramount announcement and in the meantime Blades of Glory HD DVDs are playing across America. One announcement has already produced results and the other one won’t mean squat for months if ever.

Perfectly said. +1

No..Paidgeek did not specifically say that their yields are 80%. You need to develop some critical thinking skill and be logical to read BR Fud talk.

Here.. I've already addreessed Paidgeek's post, that we all agree is very clear what it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11497080&postcount=50
Critical thinking... :rolleyes: Why do you think I asked the question? I'm sorry I didn't see your previous post. Either way, your post is still adding information that none of us know for certain. Still, I think it would be good for people like myself to know when someone says yield percentages, that we know exactly what that percentage is. Am I wrong?

An earlier response from xradman indicates Amir's way of measuring yield is on a per day basis. If that were the case, maybe the machine is running smoothly for a month and gets 80%, the next day isn't working right and puts out 40%. Doesn't sound like a very accurate measurement either to pick out any day you want. You would want an average over a period of time, wouldn't you? Or if you want to call that BD fud, I'll switch it up, maybe the machine is running for a month at 40% per day, then one day it miraculously gets 80%, and that's the br fud I guess.

I don't know the manufacturing process, the reliability of these machines, but it sure appeared that Amir's comment might help explain the numbers differences, what each number could mean, so I asked. The answer could have gone either way, and I am open to hearing it no matter what.

But at the end of it all, a lot of people forget exactly what FUD is. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt) Please explain to me exactly how Paidgeek's comment regarding 80+% yields is either fear, uncertainty, or doubt.

If thats a low blow then so was the original statement.

Yes it was. Two wrongs and all that.

Critical thinking... :rolleyes: Why do you think I asked the question? I'm sorry I didn't see your previous post. Still, I think it would be good for people to know when someone says yield percentages, that we know exactly what that percentage is. Am I wrong?

An earlier response from xradman indicates Amir's way of measuring yield is on a per day basis. If that were the case, maybe the machine is running smoothly for a month and gets 80%, the next day isn't working right and puts out 40%. Doesn't sound like a very accurate measurement either to pick out any day you want. You would want an average over a period of time, wouldn't you? Or if you want to call that BD fud, I'll switch it up, maybe the machine is running for a month at 40% per day, then one day it miraculously gets 80%, and that's the br fud I guess.

I don't know the manufacturing process, the reliability of these machines, but it sure appeared that Amir's comment might explain the numbers differences, what each number could mean. How is that BD fud? The answer could have gone either way, and I am open to hearing it no matter what.

But at the end of it all, a lot of people forget exactly what FUD is. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt) Please explain to me exactly how Paidgeek's comment regarding 80+% yields is either fear, uncertainty, or doubt.

He is dissiminating doubt and uncertainty by not providing definite answer. He is saying that they've managed to reach 80% but it is not sustainable. He is considering only Sony's plant, while he's pretending he doesn't have information about other plants that I find VERY hard to believe.

This my friend is a statement that further provides uncertainty and doubt as it gives no direct answer.

As for Amir's post. Personally for a business who comes to a plant, it is important that the shippments of new copies are delivered on daily basis and the yield is measured from when you turn the machine on and until you turn if off, not on your "best" days.

Again, Amir, Dave and a few others have clearly confirmed numbers ranging from horrific 10% to 40% yields, which is more then enough to deduce that there is a problem and is highly likely that it's the truth.

Do you understand the difference?

Do you even know what FUD means? I suggest everyone read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt

"FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative (and vague) information. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_barriers) among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_partner) who could potentially become a rival."


Sounds an awful lot like the information about yield rates doesn't it? If no proof is provided it is the very definition of FUD.

Now please show me all the examples of blu-ray insiders spreading negative information about HDDVD. Its a short list so it shouldn't take you long.

I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You post stuff that contradicts yourself.

We're done, I can't waste my time.

Hey you all... How about stopping here for a few hours? It is 12:35am where I am. I think sleep is more important than highdef media but I could be mistaken. :D

Good night everyone. Let's hope we wake up with everyone in better mood!

Do you even know what FUD means?...


Sounds an awful lot like the information about yield rates doesn't it? If no proof is provided it is the very definition of FUD.

What is the reason for having a lack of proof in this case? Information lockdown.

Who is hiding the numbers? Sony and the BDA.

When has Sony or the BDA ever once hidden numbers that would be favorable to their cause? Never.

Why do they continue to hide these numbers? Logical conclusion, they have something to hide. Adverse reaction and skepticism toward the viability of the Blu Ray platform would most likely be the end result of the numbers going public.

It may be better if you left IMO. Your continuous attempts to confront the BD insiders and snide anti-BD comments are just as tiresome. You act as if you aren't guilty of the same thing. :rolleyes:

If you'd like I'd be happy to post some examples. You also haven't answered my questions in the other thread. Why not? You seem to have answered plenty of the other questions, some of which were posted after mine.

Glad you don't speak for everyone TSB. Put Amir on your ignore list.

It's due to his "motives" a lot of things about BD have been discovered. It's pulling teeth trying to get BD insiders to answer ANY question that does not put their beloved format under bright lights.

Not to mention all the secrecy about specs, profiles, etc...

Glad you don't speak for everyone TSB. Put Amir on your ignore list.

It's due to his "motives" a lot of things about BD have been discovered. It's pulling teeth trying to get BD insiders to answer ANY question that does not put their beloved format under bright lights.

Not to mention all the secrecy about specs, profiles, etc...
+1

One thing about yields is that they don't drastically improve simply because you wish them to. Yes, as technology and processing becomes more refiend, yields will better to an extent but if the architecture itself is very demanding, you might never be able to meet demand.

The maximum yield threshold is determined by the complexity of the item.

If any of you followed PC Video Cards you'll know all about what I'm referring to.

You can make a VERY fast card with low yields. The rest of the cards can by turned into lower sku's by locking pipes and/or changing clocks. Often companies end up doing respins or changing the architecture to get acceptable yields. The key words here are archiecture complexity. Make something at the brink of technology and you're gonna have a rough time making a lot of it! Sure it looks great n' all but you better hope it doesn't get too popular.

And really, at this point Sony has no choice but to produce BD50's. It's their big selling point! Easily the biggest.

Amir,

Can a failed BD50 still come out as a working BD25 or in optical land if it doesn't meet the goal, it's junked? Same for HD. Can a failed HD30 be a valid HD15?

Warner and Universal are already doing with HDi what Disney is trying to do with BD-J and HD DVDs mandatory spec means that multiple lossless tracks would be a waste of space.

I'm thinking that when you say "lossless" tracks, you are actually meaning "PCM" tracks. Lossless compressed tracks (such as DD-THD and DTS-HD MA) save space quite well. (Though of course, lossy compressed tracks save it even better (such as DD+ and DTS-HD HR) :).)

As for Amir's post. Personally for a business who comes to a plant, it is important that the shippments of new copies are delivered on daily basis and the yield is measured from when you turn the machine on and until you turn if off, not on your "best" days.

Again, Amir, Dave and a few others have clearly confirmed numbers ranging from horrific 10% to 40% yields, which is more then enough to deduce that there is a problem and is highly likely that it's the truth.

Do you understand the difference?
Even with daily yield numbers, you could have best, worst, and average. The best would obviously be PR and of little use, but the other two could also be very useful, for a studio to know what it can expect as a minimum amount any given day, and also what to expect over a period of time. Paidgeek's number likely is the best case. Are Amir & Dave's numbers average or worst case? I don't remember that being said anywhere, maybe I missed it, it's tough sorting everything out especially when it's not my day job. :p

But the real confusion I still have, is what this quote means from Amir: "BDA companies have completely distorted this number, by measuring yields once the equipment achieves its peak function." By the context of what we're talking about, could that quote mean the BDA is measuring a timeframe within a day, maybe maximum yields over just a couple hours? To me, the phrase "once the equipment achieves its peak function" means that the machine is working at an optimal capacity consistently. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.

I just have this gut feeling that the interpretation of the yield numbers is still not properly defined. I'd like to assume these numbers from Amir & Dave are current daily averages, but I am not positive.

Before I quit for the night -- I'd just like to remind everyone of these parting words from Mark Rubin.

Insiders & Outsiders are welcome: we expect the highest level of decorum

more to follow...

In case you aren't aware, reading this thread thus far is strongly reminiscent of a grade school playground -- and that's not a pretty evaluation!

Night all :)!

Before I quit for the night -- I'd just like to remind everyone of these parting words from Mark Rubin.



In case you aren't aware, reading this thread thus far is strongly reminiscent of a grade school playground -- and that's not a pretty evaluation!

Night all :)!

So far iv added "tsb" to the stupid list (ignore). It is a shame when a few ruin it for the rest of us :(
M Rubin,
Please take a DrDon approach to this thread, ie a no nonsense if you thread crap as per half the posts above your gonna be taking a holiday!
Thanks

You can't really compare the architecture of a GPU on a semiconductor process to BD, since the end result of a GPU design is the physical layout on the semiconductor, and yield varies because the geometry varies for each design. GPU architecture is on top of a process.

In contrast, BD *IS* the process. It is a fixed design. The disc process, nor physical disc recording layout, does not change based on the movie being written to it. (PoTC discs are not thinner or thicker than say, Stealth)

Saying that BD's process is ultimately limited, is more akin to saying that a semiconductor process scaling is ultimately limited (e.g. That with current photolithography techniques, you will face more and more problems as you push down to 45/32/22nm, more leakage, etc)

So, you know, 5 years ago, 45nm leakage issues looked depressing. Then, Intel introduced their hafnium dopant. That's the problem with trying to predict limits.

Perhaps using currently known techniques and materials, BD's cycle time can't be reduced, but against the laws of physics? Hardly. Unless Amir wants to prove that no possible engineering exists to polycarbonate discs which can cool them faster. No *known* technique might not exist, but the rate at which something can be cooled is not purely a function of its thickness. I could demonstrate this easily by dropping a disc into liquid nitrogen, vs letting it cool slowly on the hood of my car. Now, the rate at which it can be cooled safely is another problem, but this is an engineering problem, with complexities beyond just the high school physics Heat Equation.

If someone like Amir was running a competitor to Intel, they'd be bemoaning the fact that next-gen CPUs take mega-expensive billion dollar fabs, and "science fiction"/"undiscovered" process technology which does not exist yet, meanwhile, Amir's company was using an old process, and therefore superior. He'd be bemoaning the fact that each switch to a new semiconductor node, be at 150->130nm, 130->90nm, or 90->65, started out with process problems, yield issues, and high cost. And he'd be right. Maybe AMD can use this line of argument in their marketing to fight Intel. "Who needs 45nm! Hafnium? It's half as good! AMD's process technology is cheaper to fab!"

Somehow, yield issues and expensive process technology didn't stop CPUs, GPUs, and hard disks. It required continual reinvestment in the high tech sector, but prices did come down. Perhaps Studios don't have the stomach for this, but I hardly see why I should care, given HD-DVD's disk prices are not cheaper at point of sale.

It seems the HD-DVD argument is to stick with old process technology and not attempt any manufacturing improvement, because it might cost money to invest, and yields would be low in the beginning.

That might be a valid argument on economic grounds if you were in the business of publishing discs, a penny pincher that didn't care about technology, but as a consumer who cares about technological advancement, it just doesn't appeal to me. I'm not interested in the absolute cheapest disc to mass produce. If a holographic disc that stored 50 terabytes existed, and cost 10x to manufacture than BD-50, I'd be cheering for it. When I buy GPUs, I buy those with invariably, the lowest yields: the highest clocked flagship cards.

I'd like to see the best disc technology succeed, and it seems to me that HD-DVD ain't it. It might be more economical, but it's less forward looking technologically. A lot of people will disagree with this, so be it.

I'm thinking that when you say "lossless" tracks, you are actually meaning "PCM" tracks. Lossless compressed tracks (such as DD-THD and DTS-HD MA) save space quite well. (Though of course, lossy compressed tracks save it even better (such as DD+ and DTS-HD HR) :).)

When I say lossless I mean PCM and TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. Some BDs have had PCM and one of the lossless compression formats. Take Ghost Rider on BD which has;English PCM 5.1 Surround (48kHz/16-Bit/4.6mbps)and English Dolby TrueHD (48kHz/20-bit)

Linkage (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/ghostrider.html)

Her is referring to this post by Dave: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11462586&postcount=3616

So I believe he is refering to BD50s, but that's not the issue, just pay attention how he words his response:



Pay attention how he says that he doesn't know what yields are in other plants (this is typical defense mechanism - so he can backpaddle if asked about other plants as well as several months ago). Of course you will not be able to confirm anything because DADC is Sony of course and again they can say that they do 100% yields when other plants other than DADC have 10% yields. Knowing Sony from previous endeavours and how they treat their partners when they say anything bad, is that if a 3rd party replicator comes out again with 10% claims, Sony will say that they are not doing it right, sticking to that DADC claim. Who's right there?

and then he says:



Which is completely irrelevant to his above statements.

So basically he told you/them that they managed to hit 80% at some point (that could've happen once or twice for all we know) but have not managed to maintain that yield, dropping to again unacceptable levels.

Handling the production is vastly questionable when you pay millions and millions for new production that should work pretty much without problems.

These type of statements are very obviously planned to do damage controls when there's clearly public information about DL50gb BD discs just being almost impossible to make without massive financial losses. And this is not said but only Dave, but was mentioned by PacificDisc I think in the Insider Thread and other replicator insiders.

If you read that statement again he did not answer directly. What's clear by his response btw, is that he basically CONFIRMS that there are problems in BD50gb production.

Btw, it is IMPOSSIBLE that he doesn't know what yield is in other replication lines have considering that they have only 8 and this is a hot issue. Especially when they are in charge of supplying many things to these companies anyway.

Another important missing piece of the puzzle is number of disc produced at a specific time frame.

Suppose that 80% yields are possible but at 15 seconds per disc?
And 10 % at speeds that are considered accepatable 2..3 seconds?

I can imagine that speeding up the lines can have an significant impact on yields.

Ok, here is a puzzler for insiders all around. Here in Korea, HD DVD just had its big release. Well, technically, it was in July. We now have a grand total of nine titles, complete with Korean subtitles. I bought four today, but noticed something VERY odd at the bottom of the package. Anybody who can read Korean can see that importing and distribution of Universal titles is being handled by none other than Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Korea.

WHAAAAAAT?

Now, apparently, Sony handles all of Universal's distribution here in Korea, but that really makes me wonder why they would choose to release titles here at all. As of now, the only Blu-ray player is the first generation Samsung (ironic, the rest of the world gets the LG dual format player along with the next gen Samsungs) with the PS3 just being released in June. Blu-ray is selling really badly here (as is DVD, but that's another store), and HD DVD has nothing but the 360 add-on, which isn't even available in stores.

My question is this: What in the heck is Sony doing here in Korea? I've noticed that thus far, only Universal titles (ie ones under Sony's control) have been released in Korea. Considering that HD DVD's only chance here is in a dual-format system, I am again puzzled as to why they would release these discs. Are they prepping for an onslaught of dual format players here in Korea and the world, under the impression that we will be in a dual format world?

Do any insiders have any idea what the deal is with these discs?

My belief is as always was. That is easy to understand if you look at the totality of what I said, not one catchy phrase.

What I said was the BD-50 was extremely difficult to manufacture. So much so that the technical executive at the top replicator I spoke to used the above phrase to describe the degree of difficulty. Keep in mind that at that point, they could not even manufacture BD-25. He thought that they could eventually get there with single layer. But dual layer really scared them. And hence that phrase. Two months later (I think) I was on the panel at Home Theater Cruise where another replicator representative repeated the same thing that he did not see how anyone could manufacture BD-50. So you could say that no independent replicator believed that Sony could find a process to mass manufacture these discs.

What people miss is that in follow up posts, I and Alex both said that Sony would find a way to produce BD-50 last year as to make sure people don't accuse them of having a purely paper spec. And that they would spare no expense in getting there. I made this statement before the format was launched btw. And indeed, this is what happened. Sony went through incredible expense in their R&D lab in Shizoka to create these discs. If they were to price them according to what it cost them, there would not a single movie released in BD-50!

With yields at 20% and less, my statement then is as true now as it was then. DVD is all about mass manufacturing. No one really cares if you can make one out of five discs work. By that measure, a company like Warner would have to make 2.5 Billion discs, to ship the 500 million which they ship per year.

This business is never about prototypes and low volume manufacturing. Intel doesn't announce any CPU with yields this low even though I am sure they could advertise clock speeds for their CPUs well in excess of the fastest CPU they produce now. In case of BD, hybrid BD+DVDs were also something that seemed to work on paper but had to be discarded because they could not produce them.


The wheels of standardization keep turning. I believe we are getting pretty close to the spec being finalized. And no, there is still no word on backward compatibility until testing starts with media and drives.

Incidentally this is exactly what some of us have tried to explain to everybody who keeps playing the science fiction trump card. That it was in the context of economic viability, and that it was originally voiced by a replicator.

To no avail.

Congrats Amir... you have your own "640KB should be enough for anybody!."

Alex also broke the info about Profile 1.1 date pushed back.

I don't believe so.

If you'll check, I think you'll find it was Amir responding to a question that broke it.

Incidentally, Talk originally was unaware of it until it broke here first.

The "totality" is that your legion of followers here kept repeatedly spamming every thread on this forum for months and months, claiming that BD50s would never be made. You, sir, are responsible for that. It is just one example of how your constant denigration of your competitors (with "information" that we can't verify or know) cheapens the debate at AVS. We can't challenge it, because the info is hidden, and you know damn well that BD insiders can't talk about these details either.


Just about everybody who really is interested in the actual facts has recognized that the Science Fiction coment had everything to do with manufacturability. (Incidentally, some time later we now have the likes of Dave Vaughn and others lending increasing credence to this).

Detractors, from BOTH sides, used the phrase out of context. There's not much to do about this I imagine... but suggesting insiders NOT post that info would be thr biggest foul, IMO.

....That might be a valid argument on economic grounds if you were in the business of publishing discs, a penny pincher that didn't care about technology, but as a consumer who cares about technological advancement, it just doesn't appeal to me....

I'd like to see the best disc technology succeed, and it seems to me that HD-DVD ain't it. It might be more economical, but it's less forward looking technologically. A lot of people will disagree with this, so be it.



DemoCoder, I am tech freak more then you can imagine. I have every single piece of tech stuff in my house, latest performance computers, laptops, PS3s, XBox360s, Wii, sound systems etc etc. and I completely understand your concern. I am even anxiously awaiting when that touch sensitive table will be out for consumers from Microsoft where you just put the camera on it and it transfers photos and shows on the table (Amir give us some info, I know that you guys are doing it in retail only now :))

But I just want to point out a few things that you are not including in your evaluation.

What we are discussing here is mostly technological aspects of disc replications for the home entertainment. Please keep in mind that in this regard 30gb or 50gb discs bare very little importance as we've already witnessed that we can fit same amount of movies, extras and features.

I have never expressed my discontent with Blu-Ray in the PC and recording market.

As you said, at some point in time when you need to progress technology you must make certain investments. As a consumer, we don't get to make those investments on a larger scale, but companies that deliver the goods do.

Now if you look at Blu-Ray's technical challenges in production, plus additional costs of buying completely new equipment, one must ask himself whether or not we really gain so much as to justify this investment. You see if we get (for home entertainment) enough space 30gb vs 50gb where both allows normal delivery of video/audio quality of next gen content for a consumer (not niche enthusiast who wants completely uncompressed audio just because they feel better knowing it's uncompressed), then paying through the nose for completely new production machines and plants become really not necessary.

Another thing is that if new technology means that it will require significant amount of fresh capital in order to get to a point of mass production, this absolutely means that the progress will be slowed down and ultimately you, as a consumer, will not be able to fully enjoy that new technology until economic scale gets to an acceptable levels for a business.

This is the advantage of HD DVD for example. In order to reach next generation audio and video, we are basically utilizing what we have in order to create that transition to a new generation more transparent, helping basically 2 things. One, for consumers to enjoy more and more titles in hi-def and the other is to pretty much get this next gen technology to cost less.

Keep in mind, that if I'm a business I would rather slowly bridge my operations to new generation without losing a lot of money but get there anyway, then suddenly to invest huge amounts of money for an unproven technology who may cause delays in production and addition unpredictable costs.

I just want to make sure you understand that it is very likely that both HD DVD and Blu-Ray will get to the same level as far as technical aspects go, where the only difference is that with Blu-ray the capital needed for the switch is multiplied several times. You know, there is a reason why a lot of CE companies and optical companies support Blu-Ray more. The whole business model requires new investments making everyone "drool" over the possibility of cashing in.

This unfortunately has very little with the value you mentioned to us as consumers.

Here let's just try to look into the future. They did some tests as far as I remember, and I will try to find the articles (I think it was TDK) that they've managed to create discs at 150gb for HD DVD and 200gb for Blu-Ray. They say however that it will not be playable by any current players. This is to be expected of course, but why I mentioned this is because we can clearly see that advancement in size is not an issue here, but the actual optics.

I strongly believe that the TL51 issue for example with HD DVD is not really a problem in manufacturing, but more of an issue whether or not it will be usable on players today. This is where computer industry comes in.

PC HD DVD or Blu-Ray drives is the actual technology that will make sense to advance and most likely this is where both formats will push most advancements in optics as it is much more easy to replace a drive in your computer when the prices fall then you dvd players and game consoles.

Don't forget that persistent storage for entertainment will more and more rely on external devices like portable hard drives with huge capacity and greater speed, or USB drives or similar instead of optical media.

Bottom line is this, both formats are more then capable of delivering next gen quality and sizes, but only one of these formats (HD DVD) is actually considering smart business model where we are utilizing what we have today in order to progress, as well as ultimately help consumers to transparently upgrade without suffer huge shock to the wallet and lack of content. Also keep in mind that even though we are amazed with hi-def this is pretty evolutionary and not revolutionary technology advancement.

We can get into completely different discussion whether or not we really need optical media at all anymore for anything else but movies.

To be honest the last time I burned a DVD was for screwing around with some video or music I wanted to play in my living room and even that was completely unnecessary as my whole house has WiFi n, streaming HD content around, all my computers networked, connected to XBox, PS3, and my living room media center, not to mention that hard drives are getting smaller and smaller in physical size and bigger in capacity, new crazy kinds on removable media is coming our way where the need for optical will be only limited pretty much for having our own little libraries of movies in our basement theaters.

Cheers.

harranguing people in absentia? feeding the group psychosis.

you just described Blu-ray.com to a t.

harranguing people in absentia? - at least the other side is allowed a view here.

feeding the group psychosis - again this develops when there is no balance to one's cognizant picture.

That's not necessarily true. I support HD DVD exclusively right now, but I plan to go format neutral and I hold both sides to the same standard. They do both pay off corporate partners and make back room deals. They both skew numbers in their favor and they both make ridiculous claims.
I'm sorry I didn't see this one before calling it a night. You are absolutely correct.

Still I give Sony credit for doing the right thing with The Fifth Element and I'm mad at Universal for not doing the same thing with Traffic. I think some of the things Disney is trying to do with BD-J are neat and I think it’s great that some BDs have multiple lossless tracks. Only a Blu-ray fanboy would deny the fact that HD DVD’s finished spec means that those BD “innovations” are either already done or moot in the HD DVD world. Warner and Universal are already doing with HDi what Disney is trying to do with BD-J and HD DVDs mandatory spec means that multiple lossless tracks would be a waste of space.
Again, right on. But you might lose that "our spec is done" argument if TL51 has no backward compatility.

One can favor one format and still switch into unbiased mode. I also think that the FUD and BS from the BDA is MUCH thicker; HD DVD does not “call all cars” the way the BDA does when things don’t go their way. The Blockbuster thing sucked and HD DVD stressed the facts of the BB press release, but they didn’t make announcements that equate to BS. Say the way the BDA did with the Paramount announcement; Fox rolling out their BD release list for the third time since January and Disney reminding people about their 2008 releases. It’s possible no one will see most of the BDs (in 2007) that Fox or Disney announced in the wake of the Paramount announcement and in the meantime Blades of Glory HD DVDs are playing across America. One announcement has already produced results and the other one won’t mean squat for months if ever.
I'm not sure if you're complaining that BDA did these things, or whether they did them well and it's working. :D

Amir,

Can a failed BD50 still come out as a working BD25 or in optical land if it doesn't meet the goal, it's junked? Same for HD. Can a failed HD30 be a valid HD15?

In the way you are asking the question, the answer is no. If you take a perfectly good disc and deposit another layer on it which is defective, chances of being able to read the other layer is essentially zero. Think of putting a second coat of varnish on your furniture which starts to peel. I don't think you would be happy with it even if the first layer is OK :).

Now, if part of the disc is OK and you have no sensitive data there, you can still use the disc. But testing every bit on the disc rather than spot check may be too expensive.

This reminds me of an excellent tidbit which Dave brought up which we have also heard. That is, studios are told if they want decent yields on BD-50, they better not fill the disc. Specifically, you want to stay away from th outer side where there could be more imperfections.

I'd like to see the best disc technology succeed, and it seems to me that HD-DVD ain't it. It might be more economical, but it's less forward looking technologically. A lot of people will disagree with this, so be it.
Excellent post! And this nails it perfectly. By only incrementally changing, HD-DVD doesn't grab for much of the future. "Good enough" seems to be their argument, and maybe it is for right now. The very thing that makes BD dramatically more expensive is exactly what gives it the edge in capacity and bandwidth.

I for once think that if HD DVD specs will have 25GB, 50GB then we won't ever have any argument about capacity, etc...but since it's 15GB, 30GB then people would do whatever it takes to justify the shortcoming. Hence the term it's good enough

Anyone still remember not long ago, people argue that 256MB ram is good enough Nothing is good enough so extra capacity won't hurt for the next few year.

Saying that BD's process is ultimately limited, is more akin to saying that a semiconductor process scaling is ultimately limited (e.g. That with current photolithography techniques, you will face more and more problems as you push down to 45/32/22nm, more leakage, etc)
But that is precisely what the companies on the other side say. To wit, Toshiba experimented with 0.1mm recording and decided that you could never perfect it to the scale required for mass manufacturing. I mean really. Nothing is hard about saying instead of recording at 0.6mm, you record at 0.1mmm. It is like putting a different lens on your camera.

The trick therefore is not the spec for BD but what process yields satisfactory results that is competitive with DVD.

Perhaps using currently known techniques and materials, BD's cycle time can't be reduced, but against the laws of physics? Hardly. Unless Amir wants to prove that no possible engineering exists to polycarbonate discs which can cool them faster. No *known* technique might not exist, but the rate at which something can be cooled is not purely a function of its thickness. I could demonstrate this easily by dropping a disc into liquid nitrogen, vs letting it cool slowly on the hood of my car. Now, the rate at which it can be cooled safely is another problem, but this is an engineering problem, with complexities beyond just the high school physics Heat Equation.
You just answered your own question. That is, if you cool the disc too fast, it become brittle. But let's say I agree that some magic gets invented here, there are three problems with this assumption:

1. Whatever makes BD discs cool faster, can make HD DVD/DVD cool even faster! After all,the substrate is the same in both. So BD remains at a cost disadvantage regardless.

2. BD has been in design for close to 8 years now inside Sony/MEI. At what point do we say enough is enough? How many venture capitalists would continue to fund a company whose ideas have yet to become competitive? Would they have pumped the kind of money MEI/Sony have spent just to have these results? At what point do you go back to Powerpoints which said all is well by now, and admit that progress has been slow for precisely the reason others mentioned?

3. CDs are similar to BD in using a thick substrate. Yes, BD is patterned after the older CD technology not DVD! Today, the cycle time for DVD is shorter/faster than CD. If the industry hasn’t found a faster way to make CDs after 25+ years, why have belief in BD doing it?

If someone like Amir was running a competitor to Intel, they'd be bemoaning the fact that next-gen CPUs take mega-expensive billion dollar fabs, and "science fiction"/"undiscovered" process technology which does not exist yet, meanwhile, Amir's company was using an old process, and therefore superior. He'd be bemoaning the fact that each switch to a new semiconductor node, be at 150->130nm, 130->90nm, or 90->65, started out with process problems, yield issues, and high cost.
No I would not because what you describe is precisely what we are doing with HD DVD! We are keeping the process overall the same, but reducing the “feature size” as is called in semiconductor world where you shrink things. BD is akin to concepts like 3-D semiconductor manufacturing (stacking chips on top of each other). A concept which sounds very attractive on paper but very difficult to put to practice after 15+ years where the original papers were written.

And he'd be right. Maybe AMD can use this line of argument in their marketing to fight Intel. "Who needs 45nm! Hafnium? It's half as good! AMD's process technology is cheaper to fab!"
I am sure AMD would be able to make that argument if Intel had suffered for 8 years to make some process step work!

It seems the HD-DVD argument is to stick with old process technology and not attempt any manufacturing improvement, because it might cost money to invest, and yields would be low in the beginning.
Not at all. Per above, BD abandons much learning when we went from CD to DVD. We learned that thinner discs protected by two 0.6mm layers give us faster cycle time, and better protection from defects. BD negates both of these by going to thick substrate and putting bits on the surface. They made the process exceptionally difficult, only to go from 30 to 50 gigabytes. Now, if they had achieved 10X the capacity, you could maybe put up with it – assuming you needed the space. But we don’t need the space above 30 gigabytes let alone them achieving 10X capacity. And if BD is styled after CD, who has the newer technology?

I'd like to see the best disc technology succeed, and it seems to me that HD-DVD ain't it. It might be more economical, but it's less forward looking technologically. A lot of people will disagree with this, so be it.
Let me ask you this: if HD DVD had Java on it, and BD had HDi, would you still have the same opinion?

Yield numbers can change depending on the type of product being run, and many other factors, but main concern is whether or not the manufacture has been able to remove the mysteries about why one line might be getting better numbers than another. This indicates they have a good handle on the entire process and indeed, DADC reached this point some time ago.

Just out of curiosity he was asked about BD50. Is this not a product? Are some BD50s easier to replicate than others? I would think that with all "pressed" media then the complication is the exact same whether there is 1MB of data on the disc or 50GB of data on the disc (assuming you are for some reason putting these on a BD50). The quote read to me that BD (as a whole) yields were 80% at that particular plant with no real answer to the question of what yields were for BD50. Since all PS3 games (AFAIK) are BD25 and a large portion of BD movie discs are BD25 couldn't this easily give them an overall average of 80% yield across both types if they are getting only 40% yield from BD50?

Some of you people are like a bunch of arguing children and you have the lamest arguments. You're six feet tall. No, you're six feet tall! You're wearing socks. No, YOU'RE wearing socks. You're side spreads FUD. No, you're side spreads FUD. :rolleyes:
I think both sides are bit right. But let me give you some insight about the other forum.

For months, I read their posts saying I was a coward only posting in the insider forum. And that they could tear me to pieces if I stepped out with their best arguments. So I went ahead and registered on their site. And after my first posting, I was banned for good and my one and only post deleted. They even deleted my second post which was put up by another member much respected.

What was my first post? BD-50 being "science fiction?" HDi vs BD-J? Political motives of BDA? An insult toward BDA insiders? No. I was explaining audio differences between DTS and TrueHD without a single mention of either BD or HD DVD!

The situation was so bad that even though a number of posters came to my defense there, they still decided to keep me out! Of course, I feel great about how they treated me. They don't get to make the challenge they did.

I hope we can go back to discussing issues now….

Excellent post! And this nails it perfectly. By only incrementally changing, HD-DVD doesn't grab for much of the future. "Good enough" seems to be their argument, and maybe it is for right now. The very thing that makes BD dramatically more expensive is exactly what gives it the edge in capacity and bandwidth.


Pepar,

I agree with you here as well. On paper, BD has all the goods, but if economics makes it unfit for mass replication, what good is it?

A certain studio (not to be named) did some internal testing using the max bitrates of HD DVD vs the max bitrates on Blu-ray. I have been told that when these clips were shown to their encoders (the people who do this for a living) as well as others in "the business". For the most part, they couldn't see any difference between the two technologies in this scenario, although there were very subtle differences between the two encodes, that if pointed out, some could see while others couldn't (compression etc.). What did this test determine? For most of Joe Q public, bitrates etc. don't mean a damn as long as the encode is given the right amount of bits.

So, when you look at the above test and see the decision that Paramount made (who did separate encodes for each format at twice the production cost for them), you can see that taken everything together, HD DVD was a more viable business model (also, if the NYT is correct, $150 million probably didn't hurt either!).

Amir said it best earlier though, if BD50's could have been made from the start with high yields, I doubt there would be a format war right now.

Pepar,

I agree with you here as well. On paper, BD has all the goods, but if economics makes it unfit for mass replication, what good is it?

A certain studio (not to be named) did some internal testing using the max bitrates of HD DVD vs the max bitrates on Blu-ray. I have been told that when these clips were shown to their encoders (the people who do this for a living) as well as others in "the business". For the most part, they couldn't see any difference between the two technologies in this scenario, although there were very subtle differences between the two encodes, that if pointed out, some could see while others couldn't (compression etc.). What did this test determine? For most of Joe Q public, bitrates etc. don't mean a damn as long as the encode is given the right amount of bits.

So, when you look at the above test and see the decision that Paramount made (who did separate encodes for each format at twice the production cost for them), you can see that taken everything together, HD DVD was a more viable business model (also, if the NYT is correct, $150 million probably didn't hurt either!).

Amir said it best earlier though, if BD50's could have been made from the start with high yields, I doubt there would be a format war right now.

Dave,

When you get a second can you answer my questions I posed to you in post #100 of this thread?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11497583&postcount=100

Excellent post! And this nails it perfectly. By only incrementally changing, HD-DVD doesn't grab for much of the future. "Good enough" seems to be their argument, and maybe it is for right now. The very thing that makes BD dramatically more expensive is exactly what gives it the edge in capacity and bandwidth.

Ah, so let me run an idea by you if all you want is the best and you don't care about manufacturing.

Have you heard of a technology called multi-level recording? You know, instead of one bit per pit, we could have 4 bits by varying the shape of the pit. Papers have been written on this btw. They showed DVDs with up to 8 bits/pit negating any need for blue laser! Where is the technology and the company which promoted it? Dead. Because it is extremely difficult to manufacture. That company had some of the best people in the business. Yet their VCs pulled the plug on them after they could not create a mass market process for it.

Four out of five start ups fail because their idea can't be successfully taken to market. Folks should think about that before they assume every technology can be made to work, because it looks good on paper.

Boasting BR as a 'revolutionairy new technology' is a gross exaggeration.

It's nothing much different than basic DVD technology with alterations applied to the tech to max out the data density. It's so max'd out that for BR50 it is backfiring as production is still not able to provide aceptable yield levels AND low cycle time.

There is also no chance to tweak the current sold BR50 lines to acceptable levels without spending serious amounts of cash or buy a new line that is able to deliver. (but not available yet) If that did not happen by now it's not likely that it will. Tweaking only goes so far. For a substantial result a re-think is required.

Dave,

A few questions.

It seems to me that we may be a few years away from individual titles selling in the millions for either format. Do you get the feeling that the BDA can and will resolve the yield problems by then?

Unknown. Anything I would say would only be a guess. The information that I have been given says that Sony has improved the yields at their plants, but their improvements don't seem to be working at independent facilities. Are they measuring yields in different ways? I will try to find out, but can't promise anything in this regard.

Why wouldn't studios simply switch to BD25 until the BD50 issues were resolved if Sony/BDA stopped subsidizing them? There is only a 5GB difference between BD25 and HD30, and it seems like HD30 is more than enough for most movies.

This would be a HUGE PR hit for Sony. Right now, with the amount of discs sold being so small, they can take the short term financial hit in hopes for a long term payoff (similar to the gaming model and the costs of equipment, or in other industries...the razor model for Gillette).

Warner is pretty much doing this though. Most of their releases are encoded at HD DVD bitrates, but must fit on a BD25 so that they can port the encodes over from HD DVD to Blu-ray. There have been a few notable exceptions to this (300 for example), but if you look back, a lot of their BD releases have come on BD25's.

Will BD50 yields even matter to Warner if they make the switch to TotalHD discs? It seems to me that Warner will head in this direction in 2008 unless they make a move to one format over the other.

Right now TotalHD discs fall into the "science fiction" category until we actually see them in production.

Previously you mentioned Paramount's concerns with replication costs (I am assuming you are referring to BD50 costs) as a major concern for them going HD DVD exclusive, yet they released more titles on BD25 discs than BD50 discs. Not one Paramount release had a space eating lossless track, and it seems to me if they stuck with no lossless with a VC-1 or AVC encode, they would have plenty of space on a BD25. Do you know why this was not an acceptable solution for them?

Thanks,
ack

No, I don't know why it wasn't acceptable. Paramount's video quality on their "new" releases have been outstanding, but their lack of HD audio has been a disappointment for me as a consumer, as well as reviewer. Although, I doubt most of the public even cares about lossless audio and even have the capability to hook it up properly (HDMI or using the analog outputs).

Thanks for the very civil questions.

BTW, I think it would be fair to say that there have been some breakthroughs in BD system. PTM mastering is well, masterful. It simplifies mastering by borrowing techniques from semiconductor manufacturing. Unfortunately for Sony, it can also be used to make HD DVD/DVDs :). But credit must be given where it is due. This is one part of BD which I think they other camp can be proud of.

Dave,

When you get a second can you answer my questions I posed to you in post #100 of this thread?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11497583&postcount=100

I was answering this when you posted your follow-up. see above :D

Sony, Toshiba... I'm waiting for Lirpa Labs INHD solution! "Your not just seeing the picture ,your in the picture!

Excellent post! And this nails it perfectly. By only incrementally changing, HD-DVD doesn't grab for much of the future. "Good enough" seems to be their argument, and maybe it is for right now. The very thing that makes BD dramatically more expensive is exactly what gives it the edge in capacity and bandwidth.
"Wands are only as powerful as the wizards who use them. Some wizards just like to boast that theirs are bigger and better than other people's" :p

I was answering this when you posted your follow-up. see above :D

Thanks Dave. I personally hope TotalHD never sees the light of day, but I also wonder if the majority of studios won't be using a format like this assuming the format war continues to drag on. The Paramount decision still baffles me unless you consider that major incentives were offered.

I am also a fan of lossless audio, and I am very happy to see Universal announcing more and more TrueHD tracks on upcoming releases. I hope that Paramount does the same thing, but as you mentioned, I doubt the general public cares as much about lossless. The problem is that the general public does not care too much about HDM right now :(

Amir gave us on page 2 of this thread what I consider the most important factor I've learned so far about the format war. Let me put this bluntly: There would be no format war if BD-50 had 80% yield and cycle time that was the same as DVD/HD DVD! Let me repeat that again. If what you all believe is true, there would be no format war. Yet there is.

Why? Because no studio would back HD DVD if they could get BD-50 discs for the same price as HD DVD-30. Fact is that it is not even close. There is a reason three major studios: Warner, Paramount and Universal back HD DVD with two exclusively so. They know the yield numbers, none of you do. This tells us why the BD50 yield is so important, and why if it was decent, Sony would tell the world

Thanks Dave. I personally hope TotalHD never sees the light of day, but I also wonder if the majority of studios won't be using a format like this assuming the format war continues to drag on. The Paramount decision still baffles me unless you consider that major incentives were offered.

If we take Paramount at their word, they made their decision based upon technological factors and costs. As for TotalHD, until I personally see it, I have no opinion one way or the other.

I am also a fan of lossless audio, and I am very happy to see Universal announcing more and more TrueHD tracks on upcoming releases. I hope that Paramount does the same thing, but as you mentioned, I doubt the general public cares as much about lossless. The problem is that the general public does not care too much about HDM right now :(

I agree with you about Universal...I am happy to see some TrueHD tracks as well (and their video encodes improving). As far as the general public caring...nope, they don't. They may not care for quite a long time either.

This business is never about prototypes and low volume manufacturing. Intel doesn't announce any CPU with yields this low even though I am sure they could advertise clock speeds for their CPUs well in excess of the fastest CPU they produce now.

Um... sure we do. But it's apples and oranges. Our risk is mitigated by the fact that if you don't get a 3 GHz part, you can sell it as a 2.8 GHz part and still make money. If you don't get a 50GB BD-ROM, you can't sell it as a 25GB BD-ROM. :)

Question to HD DVD insider
What is the current yield rate of a HD15 and a HD30?

HD DVD Insider Response:
HD15 Yield is x%, while HD30 Yield is x%

Question to Blu-ray Insider:
What is the current yield rate of a BD25 and a BD50?

BD Insider Answer:
BD25 Yield is x%, while BD50 Yield is x%

I don't see the problem in answering those questions, and if an insider refuses to answer or refute % claims, then it's obvious they are hiding something or the yields are simply too low to announce (i.e potentially damaging).

I'm dying to know the yields, too, but your characterization of companies not revealing them "having something to hide" is misplaced. Intel doesn't give out its yield numbers because it's information we don't want our competitors to have, not because they're secretly very low and we don't want the public to know how moronic we are.

I think both sides are bit right. But let me give you some insight about the other forum.
:rolleyes:

For months, I read their posts saying I was a coward only posting in the insider forum. And that they could tear me to pieces if I stepped out with their best arguments. So I went ahead and registered on their site. And after my first posting, I was banned for good and my one and only post deleted. They even deleted my second post which was put up by another member much respected.

What was my first post? BD-50 being "science fiction?" HDi vs BD-J? Political motives of BDA? An insult toward BDA insiders? No. I was explaining audio differences between DTS and TrueHD without a single mention of either BD or HD DVD!

The situation was so bad that even though a number of posters came to my defense there, they still decided to keep me out! Of course, I feel great about how they treated me. They don't get to make the challenge they did.

Well, amigo Amir, I'd be rushing to your defense as well in that circumstance. I despise it here and, if/when I encounter it there, I will chew on them for bad behavior as well. I give you points for even venturing into the den of the opponent. But then, that's what one would expect at a site like that - rabid fanboyism. But here, on a supposedly neutral forum, I get hammered when I'm merely trying to be neutral. What up with that? How did is get like that? I don't remember any rivalry even coming close except maybe ATI/nvidia. Is this wackiness a legitimate marketing strategy now? Are there people at the top of these formats who chose this way of "having it out" and are behind the scenes feeding it?

I hope we can go back to discussing issues now….
That *would* be nice. It's just that the issues are being framed on the bias. :)

Let me put this bluntly: There would be no format war if BD-50 had 80% yield and cycle time that was the same as DVD/HD DVD! Let me repeat that again. If what you all believe is true, there would be no format war. Yet there is.

Why? Because no studio would back HD DVD if they could get BD-50 discs for the same price as HD DVD-30. Fact is that it is not even close. There is a reason three major studios: Warner, Paramount and Universal back HD DVD with two exclusively so. They know the yield numbers, none of you do.


This has been stated, and quoted, and I may even mostly agree with it. But there is then an interesting implication that tells us when the format war will be over.

Both sides are gradually scaling up, making and selling more and more discs.

For the moment Sony appears to be somehow keeping the price and availability of DL50 acceptable to many studios. Though now maybe (or not) excepting Paramount.

So an end is in sight. HDM will eventually reach a volume where Sony shows demonstrable ability to have these things manufactured by somebody as we go forward into the next generation. And BD wins.

Or we reach a point where the DL50 discs are not sufficiently available and Sony cannot afford to subsidize them at that quantity anymore. And HD DVD wins.

It really seems to me many of the other peripheral issues don't count much by that point.

Anybody have any guesses when or at what volume that point is reached?

- Tom

So an end is in sight. HDM will eventually reach a volume where Sony shows demonstrable ability to have these things manufactured by somebody as we go forward into the next generation. And BD wins.

Or we reach a point where the DL50 discs are not sufficiently available and Sony cannot afford to subsidize them at that quantity anymore. And HD DVD wins.

It really seems to me many of the other peripheral issues don't count much by that point.

Anybody have any guesses when or at what volume that point is reached?

- Tom18 months from 8/20/07.

Amir said it best earlier though, if BD50's could have been made from the start with high yields, I doubt there would be a format war right now.
OK, fair enough. What has HD-DVD done wrong to have not closed the deal on this next format? Why *did* the studios line up behind BD when HD-DVD had/has so much going for it? Without naming names - oh, what the he77 - are there "strategeries" at work that wanted to freeze Microsoft out of the picture, so to speak, and *that's* why BD is where it is? :)

I am sure AMD would be able to make that argument if Intel had suffered for 8 years to make some process step work!


Er... I really love your posts, Amir, and agree with them, mostly... but maybe you should stop making semiconductor analogies. Do you know how long we've been researching some of this stuff before it goes into production it in a CPU? :D 'Cause I do, and sometimes it's longer than 8 years.

Ah, so let me run an idea by you if all you want is the best and you don't care about manufacturing.

Have you heard of a technology called multi-level recording? You know, instead of one bit per pit, we could have 4 bits by varying the shape of the pit. Papers have been written on this btw. They showed DVDs with up to 8 bits/pit negating any need for blue laser! Where is the technology and the company which promoted it? Dead. Because it is extremely difficult to manufacture. That company had some of the best people in the business. Yet their VCs pulled the plug on them after they could not create a mass market process for it.

Four out of five start ups fail because their idea can't be successfully taken to market. Folks should think about that before they assume every technology can be made to work, because it looks good on paper.
Yes, I have heard of that concept in re magnetic storage - multistate domain - and I certainly get your point. But VCs will invest in nearly anything, no matter how wacky. Do you think that BD manufacturing technology (I believe is the context) is *that* far out? And wouldn't the fact that they are making and selling product (and let's leave "profitability" out of this right now please) make your argument moot?

There are many reasons why we are here today. I suggest reading DVD Demystified. There is a great history of DVD in there that even touches upon BD and HD DVD. Sony felt that got for lack of a better term, "screwed" by the DVD forum and they had to compromise much more than other companies (Toshiba) and they weren't going to compromise this time around. Amir can probably give us a great story here!

Er... I really love your posts, Amir, and agree with them, mostly... but maybe you should stop making semiconductor analogies. Do you know how long we've been researching some of this stuff before it goes into production it in a CPU? :D 'Cause I do, and sometimes it's longer than 8 years.

Yeah, but do you paper launch it 8 years before the real launch :p

There is also no chance to tweak the current sold BR50 lines to acceptable levels without spending serious amounts of cash or buy a new line that is able to deliver. (but not available yet)
Respectfully sir, you are stating this as fact; how do you know this? :confused:

When I say lossless I mean PCM and TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. Some BDs have had PCM and one of the lossless compression formats. Take Ghost Rider on BD which has;English PCM 5.1 Surround (48kHz/16-Bit/4.6mbps)and English Dolby TrueHD (48kHz/20-bit)

Linkage (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/ghostrider.html)

My missinterpretation :)! (I believe what some of that is about is the migration from PCM to DD-THD on BD -- problem being BR players that support DD-THD are a relatively new arrival. Would be nice to understand what the Fox and Studio Canal DTS-HD MA is all about!) Thanks :)!

Yes, I have heard of that concept in re magnetic storage - multistate domain - and I certainly get your point. But VCs will invest in nearly anything, no matter how wacky. Do you think that BD manufacturing technology (I believe is the context) is *that* far out? And wouldn't the fact that they are making and selling product (and let's leave "profitability" out of this right now please) make your argument moot?

But isn't that his point? This isn't an academic exercise - profitability is the goal.

"Wands are only as powerful as the wizards who use them. Some wizards just like to boast that theirs are bigger and better than other people's" :p
:p indeed. Good one!

:p indeed. Good one!

But then, aren't the BD wands selling twice as fast? ;)
Not in Diagon Alley

Sorry to see many of the questions here just being the same that have been hashed out over and over on the "Format Battle General Discussion Thread". Suggest such posts be moved there if they are not responses to new posts/info exposed in the "Industry Insiders Master Q&A Thread".

I like the idea of no emoticons and no foul language (even if obfuscated -- Whiskey Tango ...)

Both sides are gradually scaling up, making and selling more and more discs.

For the moment Sony appears to be somehow keeping the price and availability of DL50 acceptable to many studios. Though now maybe (or not) excepting Paramount.

So an end is in sight. HDM will eventually reach a volume where Sony shows demonstrable ability to have these things manufactured by somebody as we go forward into the next generation. And BD wins.

Or we reach a point where the DL50 discs are not sufficiently available and Sony cannot afford to subsidize them at that quantity anymore. And HD DVD wins.

It really seems to me many of the other peripheral issues don't count much by that point.
Sooo, you think BD50 yields is the canary in the coal mine for the format war?

Yeah, but do you paper launch it 8 years before the real launch :p

We limit our paper launches to one year. Two years tops. :D

But isn't that his point? This isn't an academic exercise - profitability is the goal.
Of course, the goal. But that's down the field and at least two quarters away. Can you say "s-u-b-s-i-d-i-z-i-n-g?"

Why *did* the studios line up behind BD when HD-DVD had/has so much going for it?
Because before either format launched, folks believed promises. At that time, no one even talked about BD-25. All the talk was about BD-50. PS3 was supposed to come out in spring and immediately kill all other consoles. Many people thought "Wii" was "we" spelled wrong.

Without naming names - oh, what the he77 - are there "strategeries" at work that wanted to freeze Microsoft out of the picture, so to speak, and *that's* why BD is where it is? :)
No, Dave hit it already. Folks were more interested in control, then just about anything else....

Er... I really love your posts, Amir, and agree with them, mostly... but maybe you should stop making semiconductor analogies. Do you know how long we've been researching some of this stuff before it goes into production it in a CPU? :D 'Cause I do, and sometimes it's longer than 8 years.
I am very familiar with CPU design as I worked for companies who did exactly that :). I also managed VLSI development while at Sony.

The analogy here is appropriate in the way I was using them. I am not aware of anyone trying to sell mass market CPUs with yields at 20% after 8 years of refining manufacturing, not paper design.

Keep in mind that BD-25 has no reason for existance since it misses BDA's own talking point: storage. It is smaller than HD DVD-30. So this whole thing is about BD-50. And the fact that despite designing it 8 years ago, they still cannot mass manufacture it. Whereas their competition is sailing out there, with far more capacity in the market.

Here is another thing to ponder. How much advantage would either Intel/AMD have if their fab was free? That is the situation with HD DVD. We can free manufacturing equipment courtesy of DVD lines which can make HD DV without a single dime from anyone. All the dollars spent on equipment can instead be spend on increasing awareness of HD Optical, improving state of art in video compression and interactivity, etc. If you had $3B to spend, would you not want it spent this way, than on building boring optical lines? :p

Yes, I have heard of that concept in re magnetic storage - multistate domain - and I certainly get your point. But VCs will invest in nearly anything, no matter how wacky. Do you think that BD manufacturing technology (I believe is the context) is *that* far out?
BD-25 no. BD-50, rather close.

And wouldn't the fact that they are making and selling product (and let's leave "profitability" out of this right now please) make your argument moot?
If they wanted to price the BD-50 properly, they would have to charge $100 to $200 per disc! Or even higher. This kind of subsidy is hiding the fact that they have not achieved what DVD has where the cost of goods is negligible (50 cents) to studios. And underperform their competition...

Paramount's video quality on their "new" releases have been outstanding, but their lack of HD audio has been a disappointment for me as a consumer, as well as reviewer. Although, I doubt most of the public even cares about lossless audio and even have the capability to hook it up properly (HDMI or using the analog outputs).

Thanks for the very civil questions.

Guess there's a question here as to the definition of "HD audio", but although Paramount doesn't seem to be much into TrueHD, their 1.5Mbps DD+ has been very nice in my book :)! (In fact, I'd like to see Warner make use of that instead of 640Kbps DD+, outside of older films with genuinely limited fidelity sound tracks of course.) Personally, I'm still used to an HD DVD world that rarely includes DD-THD period :)!

If they wanted to price the BD-50 properly, they would have to charge $100 to $200 per disc! Or even higher. This kind of subsidy is hiding the fact that they have not achieved what DVD has where the cost of goods is negligible (50 cents) to studios. And underperform their competition...
I'm sorry, you need to back that up in some fashion.

BD-25 no. BD-50, rather close.

Why do we always insist that BD-25 isn't enough, and BD-50 is essential for Blu-ray's survival? And why is 30 gigs magically somehow "enough" and the breaking point.

I don't understand this:
BD-25 = cramped, not enough space
HD-30 = perfect, no more space needed
BD-50 = too expensive, cannot be manufactured, customers don't want it, etc.

Is it logical to believe that BD-25 will eventually be MUCH cheaper to manufacture than HD-30? Isn't this a major advantage for Blu-ray?

I for once think that if HD DVD specs will have 25GB, 50GB then we won't ever have any argument about capacity, etc...but since it's 15GB, 30GB then people would do whatever it takes to justify the shortcoming. Hence the term it's good enough

Anyone still remember not long ago, people argue that 256MB ram is good enough Nothing is good enough so extra capacity won't hurt for the next few year.

I guess that means that all BD-25 releases are inferior to all HD-30 releases? Let me know what you think--because there's a lot of them out there.

If you know he's lying then you must have some facts you must share with us, or perhaps, you're lying

What facts has Amir posted to support the $150 claim?

I guess that means that all BD-25 releases are inferior to all HD-30 releases? Let me know what you think--because there's a lot of them out there.

Theoretically those BD-25 releases are still superior to HD-30. If the movie is only 90 minutes long the only thing that matters is maximum bandwidth.

I'd much rather see my 90 minute action movies with 40 mpbs peaks than 24 mpbs. :)

Theoretically those BD-25 releases are still superior to HD-30. If the movie is only 90 minutes long the only thing that matters is maximum bandwidth.

I'd much rather see my 90 minute action movies with 40 mpbs peaks than 24 mpbs. :)
You seem very comfortable for a guy with 7 posts. Why don't you show us where the bitrates you claim make a real difference in picture quality.

That is the situation with HD DVD. We can free manufacturing equipment courtesy of DVD lines which can make HD DV without a single dime from anyone. All the dollars spent on equipment can instead be spend on increasing awareness of HD Optical, improving state of art in video compression and interactivity, etc.
This is a lie. I can prove it, but I'd like to give you the opportunity to retract it before I do. Let me repeat what you have said:(we) can make HD DV without a single dime from anyone.

What facts has Amir posted to support the $150 claim?I'm not defending Amir, I'm asking Max for his information that proves Amir wrong.

You seem very comfortable for a guy with 7 posts. Why don't you show us where the bitrates you claim make a real difference in picture quality.

I can comfortably state that peak bandwidth is necessary for seamless branching. Is this technology available on HD-DVD?

Picture quality isn't just about moving pixels... it is the whole experience.

Theoretically those BD-25 releases are still superior to HD-30. If the movie is only 90 minutes long the only thing that matters is maximum bandwidth.

I'd much rather see my 90 minute action movies with 40 mpbs peaks than 24 mpbs. :)

Well, unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a single reputable source that can actually back up any claims of image superiority. Why don't you show me an image comparison so I can see a real-world example? As a matter of fact, High-Def Digest's highest review--and the only review to receive 5 stars--went to Hot Fuzz (an HD-DVD release).

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/hotfuzz.html

I'm not defending Amir, I'm asking Max for his information that proves Amir wrong.

Amir has made a positive claim, BD 50 costs $100+/disc to produce. Logically, the burden is on him to prove the claim.

If he cannot, he should retract the claim.

points given [insulting other member]

posts deleted

At Blu-ray.com PaidGeek has confirmed yield rates consistently better then 80% for BD-50's. He has also given the OK to post those statements here at AVS:

I don't know what the yields are at other plants, but DADC told me several months ago that they were getting very acceptable results at over 80%.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4988&page=129

I'll see what DADC has officially approved for public consumption. It's interesting how there is such a fixation on this. I know for a fact that BD50 replication is going well, orders are getting filled promptly, and very large runs have been completed in just a week or so. Frankly I'm a little embarrassed to approach our replicators about this question, because at this point in time, it's just not relevant anymore.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4988&page=131

This should put to rest this debate and misinformation being presented on this subject in this thread.


~Josh

Amir has made a positive claim, BD 50 costs $100+/disc to produce. Logically, the burden is on him to prove the claim.

If he cannot, he should retract the claim.Simple claims he has proof, I'm willing to wait to see what he says.

At Blu-ray.com PaidGeek has confirmed yield rates consistently better then 80% for BD-50's. He has also given the OK to post those statements here at AVS:


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4988&page=129


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4988&page=131

This should put to rest this debate and misinformation being presented on this subject in this thread.


~JoshWell we have $ numbers for HD15, HD30, BD25. Why can't we get some for BD50?

This is a lie. I can prove it, but I'd like to give you the opportunity to retract it before I do. Let me repeat what you have said:(we) can make HD DV without a single dime from anyone.

No ... he said "We can free manufacturing equipment courtesy of DVD lines which can make HD DV without a single dime from anyone." - I leave it to an exercise to the reader to determine the difference in meaning these quotes convey.

At Blu-ray.com PaidGeek has confirmed yield rates consistently better then 80% for BD-50's. He has also given the OK to post those statements here at AVS:


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4988&page=129


http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4988&page=131

This should put to rest this debate and misinformation being presented on this subject in this thread.


~Josh


Josh,

Do you mind asking him over there if that 80% yield is for BD50 only? or for BD25 and BD50 combined? Or for BD25, BD50, and DVD at DADC? Also find out if that yield is calculated based on machine turn on to turn off and not only calculated during the 'efficient/tuned' runtime in between.

Thanks!

Well we have $ numbers for HD15, HD30, BD25. Why can't we get some for BD50?

Yup, and HD30 is cheaper than BD25 to produce ... yet ... BD50 is supposed to be cheaper or equal to HD30? :confused:

Yields are key, we have several Insider's posting different / conflicting information and unfortunately, Paid is over on that other forum where it is highly unlikely anyone will be able to ask for clarification without getting banned.

Well we have $ numbers for HD15, HD30, BD25. Why can't we get some for BD50?

Where are these numbers from? And what is the cost of a HD30 combo?

Where are these numbers from? And what is the cost of a HD30 combo?

Likely Pacific Disc ... though I don't believe they are doing HD30C's. I think he mentioned they *could* do them, but would price it out based on a request by request basis. He was pretty emphatic when he stated they were unable to do BD50's -- and that seems to be the trend.

Also, since HD DVD is based on DVD technology, and we all know that DVD Flippers can be produced in significant quantities, I can't imagine it's a stretch for HD DVD Combos -- especially since one side is just a regular ole DVD side.

New Rule, please read.
If you are here as a representative from ether camp your contribution is welcomed but moving forward please do not disparage or bash the opposing format in any way.
Please play fair.

Thank you!!

New Rule, please read.
If you are here as a representative from ether camp your contribution is welcomed but moving forward please do not disparage or bash the opposing format in any way.
Please play fair.

Thank you!!

rules in the Insider's top post updated

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11471001&postcount=1

How is it possible to talk about your format without mentioning the competition? If you feel the competition is misleading, how do you eek that out without questioning them?

If Amir had not pushed the hd pip issue, wouldnt we be non the wiser still, and infact until profile1.1 players/titles where out?

regards

John.

Who came up with this idea? It's terrible.

Since I don't have a "side", does that mean I can comment on both?

Since I don't have a "side", does that mean I can comment on both?
I believe that means you cannot comment on either. :eek:

good change. If it doesn't work, the moderators can alter the rules until a more AVS like thread propagates (that is Science and not politics).

Since I don't have a "side", does that mean I can comment on both?
I believe that means you cannot comment on either. :eek:

lol

This is a strange situation. I thought the insider thread was going along quite nicely the past several weeks. What triggered the sudden change in policy?

Now no one is happy. :(

This new rule is ridiculous.

There is a story. A guy was in the market selling shields and spears. He raised the shields and boasted his shields as the best in the market and no spears would penetrate it. Then he picked the spear and said his spear is so sharp, it would destroy any shields. Then somebody in the crowd said like "well, how about use your own spear to test your shield?" The guy was silenced and run away.

Without mentioning the other format, how could an insider make an argument that their chosen format is the best one?

It is the candid discussions from both side that made the insider thread really interesting to read, and I believe helped the adoption of either formats, to a varying degree, of course.

Plus, there are obvious ways to defeat this, such as an outsider will behave like a liaison to induce insiders to fight it out. At the end, there will be more posts than ever, JMHO.

Without mentioning the other format, how could an insider make an argument that their chosen format is the best one?


I thought the purpose of an insiders thread was to give the average consumer the ability to ask someone inside the industry a question. Was it originally envisioned as a marketing tool?

I think if you want a "format war insiders debate thread", that should be set up independently of an insiders Q&A thread.

It's a real stupid move to censor insiders.

And the most informative thread on this forum is now effectively shut down.

IMHO, the discussions about yields and cost per disc have degraded this thread substantially. We don't have actual data or objective insiders to present any data. Besides, most of that discussion leads nowhere. As far as I can tell, discs have been released in all shapes and sizes. Unless someone can openly point to a release in a particular format that was held back or crippled due to yield or disc cost, the point is moot.

Insiders stomp away because they don't like the tone of the questioning and the responses. Largely, this comes about because the "questioning" is mostly just baiting. How about an insiders thread where the insiders and their customers (us) behave as we would in a public, professional situation. Then, maybe we could learn something about these particular formats instead of rehashing the same, tired talking points.

How is it possible to talk about your format without mentioning the competition? If you feel the competition is misleading, how do you eek that out without questioning them?

If Amir had not pushed the hd pip issue, wouldnt we be non the wiser still, and infact until profile1.1 players/titles where out?
Paint your chosen format in the best light possible. You should be able to do that without resorting to painting the other format in as bad a light as possible. If you can't do that, don't blame the rules WHICH APPLY TO EVERYONE. Quit your whining.

edit: ALL OF YOU!

Since I don't have a "side", does that mean I can comment on both?

You sure you don't have a side? Looking at your posts sure does look like you picked a side.

How is it possible to talk about your format without mentioning the competition? If you feel the competition is misleading, how do you eek that out without questioning them?

If Amir had not pushed the hd pip issue, wouldnt we be non the wiser still, and infact until profile1.1 players/titles where out?

regards

John.

+1
Paint your chosen format in the best light possible. You should be able to do that without resorting to painting the other format in as bad a light as possible. If you can't do that, don't blame the rules WHICH APPLY TO EVERYONE. Quit your whining.

edit: ALL OF YOU!
You're awfully vocal for someone who hasn't bought into either format yet. It seems odd that you care enough to argue and complain on a forum, but not enough to actually buy a player. As a supporter of both, I welcome challenges from each format's competition - sometimes it's the only way to get to the truth (see the "HD PiP is mandatory for profile 1.1" farce.)

Unless someone can openly point to a release in a particular format that was held back or crippled due to yield or disc cost, the point is moot.

By saying the point is moot you are claiming that it doesn't matter how much it costs to replicate media as long as it gets to market. I would say that Paramount disagrees with you for starters, as would any studio having to foot the bill for a media with a high failure rate.

If no insider can comment on the "other format" in this forum, them maybe there should be two separate forums: one for HD DVD insiders, and one for Blu-ray insiders where each can say what they want.

I thought the purpose of an insiders thread was to give the average consumer the ability to ask someone inside the industry a question. Was it originally envisioned as a marketing tool?

I think if you want a "format war insiders debate thread", that should be set up independently of an insiders Q&A thread.

When you have a war, a conflict, a confrontation, ... it is inevitable for people to promote their own entity. If this becomes a marketing too, the opportunity is equal to both sides. But I agree it should not become a promotion tool.

If we don't have a debate, truth will be lost in the fog of war.

Another point, I believe BD supporters will like this rule more than HD-DVD supporter...

Paint your chosen format in the best light possible. You should be able to do that without resorting to painting the other format in as bad a light as possible. If you can't do that, don't blame the rules WHICH APPLY TO EVERYONE. Quit your whining.

edit: ALL OF YOU!


Please, quit it with your mother hen BS Sgt. Pepar.

You are as guilty as anyone. You just made a "2-1 sales advantage" crack at the HD DVD side not even a few hours ago... you erased it, but someone had already quoted you.

You sure you don't have a side? Looking at your posts sure does look like you picked a side.
I've read all of his posts and I accept that he does not have a favorite. Or, if he does, it hasn't interfered with his journalistic integrity. He has alternatively said things I liked and things that I didn't. In my book, that makes him a neutral asset. :)

I am very familiar with CPU design as I worked for companies who did exactly that :). I also managed VLSI development while at Sony.

The analogy here is appropriate in the way I was using them. I am not aware of anyone trying to sell mass market CPUs with yields at 20% after 8 years of refining manufacturing, not paper design.


So you're saying BD-50 has been in the "refining manufacturing" stage for the last 8 years? 'Cause I thought the -ROM designs were only brushstroked up to a couple of years ago? 8 years is about the technology cycle in silicon process development, from pathfinding to HVM. The groundwork for 45nm was done in 2000-2001 or thereabouts. The new dialectrics? Probably not, but you can be darned certain the exploration was underway. "Refining manufacturing" aka "from lab to fab" takes about two years, but that's assuming the process file is done beforehand-- which is a development activity in itself.


Keep in mind that BD-25 has no reason for existance since it misses BDA's own talking point: storage. It is smaller than HD DVD-30. So this whole thing is about BD-50. And the fact that despite designing it 8 years ago, they still cannot mass manufacture it. Whereas their competition is sailing out there, with far more capacity in the market.


Okay. My unfamiliarity with the BD history is showing. Like I said, I was unaware BD-50 (-ROM) was already designed 8 years back.


Here is another thing to ponder. How much advantage would either Intel/AMD have if their fab was free?

Sometimes it is, almost. Sometimes the vast majority of a node transition uses the equipment from an older node tricked out with mild improvements. Which is the same thing as HD DVD, and of course it's an advantage-- never said it wasn't. Just that the 8 years is not unreasonable from concept to market in CPUs. If Sony indeed had BD-ROM 50GB 8 years ago in the lab, that would, indeed, be pretty long to get to decent yields.

Another point, I believe BD supporters will like this rule more than HD-DVD supporter...
Yes, and that's what all the whining is about.

Please, quit it with your mother hen BS Sgt. Pepar.

You are as guilty as anyone. You just made a "2-1 sales advantage" crack at the HD DVD side not even a few hours ago... you erased it, but someone had already quoted you.
Yes, I did. Even I get caught up in the moment. BTW, did I mis-state the sales?

Paint your chosen format in the best light possible. You should be able to do that without resorting to painting the other format in as bad a light as possible. If you can't do that, don't blame the rules WHICH APPLY TO EVERYONE. Quit your whining.

edit: ALL OF YOU!

Your missing the point. If you arent allowed to mention the otherside you cant correct inaccurracies, i.e. bd pip is HD. That would still be a fallacy now if it wasnt for one side questioning the other.

I'm debating, bytheway, not whining;)

Kindest regards

John.

Paint your chosen format in the best light possible. You should be able to do that without resorting to painting the other format in as bad a light as possible. If you can't do that, don't blame the rules WHICH APPLY TO EVERYONE. Quit your whining.

edit: ALL OF YOU!
Uhh - full disclosure: Are you or have you ever been a registered member of blu-ray.com that bans BD dissent? Are you trying to apply that standard here? :mad:

Question applies to everyone that agrees with the change.

Coming from someone who says this on Blu-Ray.com

Originally Posted by jwflowersii
When I have a said that any format is better. I just don't like the rule change at AVS and wish Paid would come back. I must be troll!!!

Your words are worthless. Your actions show that you are an HD-DVD troll.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=14710&page=27

Somehow, I don't believe Pepar

Uhh - full disclosure: Are you or have you ever been a registered member of blu-ray.com that bans BD dissent? Are you trying to apply that standard here? :mad:

Question applies to everyone that agrees with the change.
This just in! Tom Cruise supports the field of psychiatry analyzing all fanboys. And then promptly medicating the entire lot!

Seems like ever since the Paramount announcement BD has been in full scale damage control. Main part of this is putting out as much disinformation as possible and shutting down anyone or anything that challenges them.

Sadly with the new rules it seems to even be working here :(

Your missing the point. If you arent allowed to mention the otherside you cant correct inaccurracies, i.e. bd pip is HD. That would still be a fallacy now if it wasnt for one side questioning the other.

I'm debating, bytheway, not whining;)

Kindest regards

John.

I think some insiders p'd in their own cheerios. If they would stick to that it would be great, but some don't know how to be professional and post in such a way that gets the truth out without propogating the war mentality.

Your missing the point. If you arent allowed to mention the otherside you cant correct inaccurracies, i.e. bd pip is HD. That would still be a fallacy now if it wasnt for one side questioning the other.

I'm debating, bytheway, not whining;)
Why would your side feel it is not fair to have the same rules apply to everyone? How does one side have an advantage if everyone is governed by the same rules?

I'm sure the moderators thought long and hard before taking the above drastic action, and I appreciate what motivated them.

Nevertheless, with all due respect, they have made a serious mistake. As far as fairness is concerned, the industry insiders are all mature adults and they are, or at least should be, quite capable of defending their positions and debunking any incorrect information, if indeed there was incorrect information.

Prior to this misguided rule change the AV Sciences Industry Insider thread was a unique forum that promoted the maximum degree of disclosure of any forum available. That should remain the goal, not maintaining the least contenious or calmest forum. Now the forum has been rendered like all the other average forums, where the insiders will merely be "preaching to their own choirs".

As was pointed out earlier, very important misinformation about Blu-ray profiles would never had come to light, in any forum, if a competing Insider didn't repeately challenge the faulty information. If the rules had remained intact perhaps the Blu-ray folks would have been able to provide equally important clarifications.

Please reconsider your action. I realize the old rules put a burden on the moderators, but that's what it takes to maintain a forum without peer.

Thanks.

Larry

Alright, I'm tired of beating around the bush! I'm not favoring either side, but honestly, when it came to debating and providing a point and counterpoint Paid got his butt kicked. He did not have all the information, and until I've seen a BD50 in my hands why should I believe anything he has said. This will probably be censured too, but really who is the whining babies!!!

Coming from someone who says this on Blu-Ray.com

Originally Posted by jwflowersii
When I have a said that any format is better. I just don't like the rule change at AVS and wish Paid would come back. I must be troll!!!

Your words are worthless. Your actions show that you are an HD-DVD troll.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=14710&page=27

Somehow, I don't believe Pepar
Did you also see the post where I criticized the BD poster who came here and used profanity in a post to Amir, including calling him a name? I was not banned for that.

Uhh - full disclosure: Are you or have you ever been a registered member of blu-ray.com that bans BD dissent? Are you trying to apply that standard here? :mad:

Question applies to everyone that agrees with the change.
It is my personal opinion with absolutely no facts to back it up:) that the owners of AVS have made a business decision to back HD-DVD. Amir will be speaking at their CEDIA party on how valuable AVS is to the industry. Now I happen to believe that AVS Forum is important, but I suspect that their bias affected the way the Insider thread was modded. And if that's the case, I think that stinks for an ostensibly neutral "forum" to play favorites.

Of course, I could be wrong.
Link. (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=196277&postcount=356)

I think some insiders p'd in their own cheerios. If they would stick to that it would be great, but some don't know how to be professional and post in such a way that gets the truth out without propogating the war mentality.
This bears repeating: I think some insiders p'd in their own cheerios. If they would stick to that it would be great, but some don't know how to be professional and post in such a way that gets the truth out without propogating the war mentality.

Did you also see the post where I criticized the BD poster who came here and used profanity in a post to Amir, including calling him a name? I was not banned for that.

It's funny, because I never called anyone any names and was civil in my conversation from the start, even though I was called many. I just don't get your point.

I find your characterizations to be un-civil. And disrespectful. "Ran away?" Nice.
And you missed the point. He was acknowledging why they ran away, and why he likewise feels the urge,

What is the value of harranguing people in absentia? You know darn well that there are no BD insiders here. And even if they were, do you think they'd be stupid enough to be goaded into divulging proprietary information?

Ahhh, now I get; you're feeding the group psychosis.
And whats the value of this post?

This just in! Tom Cruise supports the field of psychiatry analyzing all fanboys. And then promptly medicating the entire lot! Your answer in psychiatry is called deflection or avoidance. Just answer the damn question.

Who came up with this idea? It's terrible.

It's a great idea if the goal is to kill the thread and render it useless.

Comments in the insider's thread on the new policy were deleted so I guess this thread is the location for dissent on the thread itself?
Amazing that AVS would want to neuter such a popular and well read thread.

Havent' people always been allowed to say "such and such product blows chunks" in an open forum. If the claims from the other side are not true won't that prove itself out in the marketplace anyway? Short of yelling fire in a crowded theater, or in this context personal rudeness, who is afraid of open speech?

Clearly there's been a desire by some to kill the thread since it inception but one would think the board itself would defend more open speech rather than more restrictive. Unless the site is receiving complaints/pressure behind the scenes this would seem to be counter productive to the intrests of the forum's own popularity.

As it stands the thread would be positioned more like a company sponsored website where questions can be answered by vested insiders in such a way to always spin favorably for one's own product with little to no challenge, rather than as a place for open discussion from the public and debate between insiders.

A disturbing turn...

Who came up with this idea? It's terrible.

Absolutely. Where else can pre-pubescent know-it-alls give official ( or not ) representatives of multinational corporations the third degree.......and get answers? If you can't stand the heat, and choose to run out of the kitchen, TS for your POV.

Why would your side feel it is not fair to have the same rules apply to everyone? How does one side have an advantage if everyone is governed by the same rules?

The side that lies would have an advantage, the side which was more dishonest would have an advantage, as it would never be challenged.

And I'm not saying one side is more dishonest than the other, but the best way to ensure one side dosnt get away with dishonesty is to have its statements questioned, is it not?

Amir,

Upto to $200 true cost of bd50 seems a little ott:eek: How do you arrive at such a high figure?

Regards

John.

With the new rules, are insiders not allowed to question each other? I read the new rules to be that they can't comment on the other format as in make a statement about their capabilities or politics. I would think questions are still allowed, such as, "Are you sure that HD PiP is included in the spec?", or "Can you confirm or point to the spec that outlines mandatory HD PiP?".

Link. (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=196277&postcount=356)
Yes, those are my words and my thoughts at the time. And right after that, not that I'm pompous enough to claim any credit, the rules got changed here. You can think anything you want, but to anyone who has NOT picked a side and lost themselves in this g0ddamn stupid arguing, it was not fair the way it was before. The different styles - and latitude to engage - of paid/talk v. Amir favored Amir. Yes, HD PIP and profiles were good digs on the part of the HD-DVD crowd, but many other points were distorted and spun, and had no real value except to keep the fanboys whipped up.