AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please

421K views 5K replies 439 participants last post by  markrubin 
#1 ·
Post Questions [only questions] directed to and answered only by Industry Insiders who are asked to identify themselves as such


Industry Insiders may answer questions or make comments: this is the thread for chat between Insiders as well


any AVS member can post questions for Insiders- but we will not tolerate any bashing


AVS recognizes the special nature of Industry Insiders and values their participation: we ask all AVS members to treat them with respect


Remember: Questions only: no off topic posts: they may be removed: and only Insiders [who have been recognized by AVS moderators] may answer


:)
 
#2,377 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
I am sure for example Sun was very unhappy to see advanced interactivity/PiP be optional in BD players.
Not that advanced interactivity is the same as BD-J, which we all now know is mandatory. If I were speaking for Sun I'd call it a minor issue, given that the vast majority of all BD players in the market by next holiday season will support BD-Live, hence the studios are unlikely to limit their content by what the minority of initial players can support.
 
#2,378 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
Bottom line, these companies are not supporting the format set forth by the organzation that they belong too, so why continue to be there and hamper its future. If they want to go there own way, then fully go there own way and step down!
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
 
#2,379 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
I think this oversimplifies the problem. As noted by the Toshiba engineer's interview, reading the third layer as high-def is trickier due to the extra "noise" caused by the layer being deeper in the disc. Not that it hasn't clearly been shown it's doable, but then you've got to prove you can transition the prototype to manufacturability, both of the discs and of the drives.
But looking at the diagram, the HD DVD layers are already the second and third farthest layers. It's the DVD layer that is closer.


I don't see that having a HD DVD layer as the closest, instead of DVD, would suddenly make the existing third layer unreadable...


EDIT: VERY sorry - just realized I posted in the Insider's thread - apologies.


Question: Is Holographic disc suitable for mass-production of Pre-recorded media? I had assumed that it would not really be, but is more suitable as recordable storage medium?
 
#2,380 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
Bottom line, these companies are not supporting the format set forth by the organzation that they belong too, so why continue to be there and hamper its future. If they want to go there own way, then fully go there own way and step down!
I'm very happy, however, to see that Disney, LG and Samsung are actively participating in YES votes on the HD DVD format :D


Will Pioneer be the next to start voting YES? ;)
 
#2,381 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
But Talk, if all these companies where not interested in HD-DVD, but HUGE capacity alone, why did they invent a temporary solution like Blu-Ray.??


Why didn´t they go for a holographic dics instead.??
 
#2,382 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
You are ignoring the history of the format war. Most of the DVD Forum members proposed what became Blu-ray as the next format. Toshiba disagreed, forcing the Blu-ray companies to form their own association. At that point Toshiba should have formed their own consortium to pursue their vision of high-def optical media.
With all those Pro Blu-ray supporters making the proposal to go to Blu-ray ("most of the DVD-Forum"), how is it possible that Toshiba won the disagreement? That is, why wasn't Toshiba simply overruled by vote?
 
#2,383 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
BINGO!


That last sentence is what SHOULD have happened, and I wonder if that could STILL be implemented. It should allow BD only companies the option to come in if they produce HD-DVD products in the future. I would think by having the BD only companies bow out of say a second tier HD-DVD sub Forum that then abstained voting couldn't block any changes.
 
#2,384 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighDeff
But Talk, if all these companies where not interested in HD-DVD, but HUGE capacity alone, why did they invent a temporary solution like Blu-Ray.??


Why didn´t they go for a holographic dics instead.??
Whatever manufacturing challenges BD50 ROMs have presented, by all accounts holographic is an order of magnitude more difficult. Many, many companies have been trying to get that technology right for many years; most are no longer around. Will it happen one day? Perhaps. In the meantime the BD companies were comfortable that Blu-ray provides the technology required for an optimal optical media format today and for the next decade.


In addition, it would be difficult to make use of much more than 50GB for the vast majority of content based on today's television display and movie production technologies (since 1080p video can clearly be transparent to the master with lots of room for lossless audio and extras in 50GB). My guess is it will be easier to get 100GB or 200GB Blu-ray to market than holographic, in the event a clear need for >50GB appears.


- Talk
 
#2,385 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
You are ignoring the history of the format war. Most of the DVD Forum members proposed what became Blu-ray as the next format. Toshiba disagreed, forcing the Blu-ray companies to form their own association. At that point Toshiba should have formed their own consortium to pursue their vision of high-def optical media. By pursuing it within the DVD Forum they knew the politics they'd be dealing with, given that most of the Blu-ray members would rightfully continue to participate as stakeholders in DVD, for which the DVD Forum was created.
I find it a bit puzzling that Toshiba alone has enough power to control the fate of the DVD forum if most everyone else wanted the BR to be the next format.


Perhaps a bit more detail on how the separation occured would fill us in?
 
#2,386 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PFC5
I would think by having the BD only companies bow out of say a second tier HD-DVD sub Forum that then abstained voting couldn't block any changes.
Since BD-only companies have IP in DVD, and HD-DVD is an extension of DVD, they are still IP holders. But if DVD Forum members were really upset about things, then BD-only companies could be voted off the SC. Hasn't happened, which tells me that people here are more upset than the DVD Forum members are. Every group has, and will have, more than its fair share of politics involved, and nothing can be done about that if you want wide industry support of a standard.
 
#2,387 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemorel
With all those Pro Blu-ray supporters making the proposal to go to Blu-ray ("most of the DVD-Forum"), how is it possible that Toshiba won the disagreement? That is, why wasn't Toshiba simply overruled by vote?
I would also be interested in the answer to this one.
 
#2,388 ·
Wasn't it true that the DVD forum had to add a couple new members to the HD DVD committe just to be able to get a quorum or whatever to get around the holdup of all the BD members abstaining? I thought there were some issues where simply by abstaining there could not be sufficient votes to pass certain issues.


- Tom
 
#2,389 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby
I would also be interested in the answer to this one.
Well, it's not technically as simple as "Toshiba". Steering Committee members include(d) Warner, NEC, Thomson, Intel, Microsoft... I don't have a full list, as the DVD Forum's website doesn't list the SC membership for 2003 (which was when "blue-laser DVD" was discussed). Suffice it to say that there were enough non-Blu-ray folks, or format-neutral folks at the time, that the pro-Blu-ray numbers were nearly equal to the anti-Blu-ray numbers plus the don't cares-- and the don't cares could be swayed against.


It wasn't just Toshiba.
 
#2,390 ·
calls for speculation/opinion by insiders:


do you think that back when hd dvd was put forth and adopted by the dvd forum that the bd camp was so sure of itself that it fealt all it had to do was abstain but not take positive action against and that maybe now they would have a different posture?
 
#2,391 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
It is simple and I will explain it again, the DVD Forum did pass and approve the specs for the HD DVD format! Whether you like it or not, the format was approved.


It is very hypocritical to stay as a member in an organization built on using a unified standard when these members clearly are going against what was approved.


If they want to stay and participate with the forum and have there vote in standards I don’t think it is to much to think that they should actually use what is agreed upon
 
#2,392 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry
Wasn't it true that the DVD forum had to add a couple new members to the HD DVD committe just to be able to get a quorum or whatever to get around the holdup of all the BD members abstaining? I thought there were some issues where simply by abstaining there could not be sufficient votes to pass certain issues.


- Tom
The two new members were Disney and Microsoft. We were added, by the vote of DVD Forum membership, as to broaden the representation at SC level. And yes, prior to that HD DVD spec was stuck and could not get passed. Absention was a real problem from what I understand and voting rules had to be changed to allow forward progress.
 
#2,393 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
If they want to stay and participate with the forum and have there vote in standards I don’t think it is to much to think that they should actually use what is agreed upon
Tom, I have to help the other side here :) by stating that DVD Forum does not and can not ask for any product committment from its member companies. We only come together to set a standard, not to agree to build products.


By the same token, Talk's statement around IP in the format is also invalid. DVD Forum does not care what IP someone may have in something. Those matters are decided outside of the forum. To wit, companies can have IP in DVD Forum standards without even being a member. If you own a patent, you own the patent. There is no requirement to join an org to talk about its usage in order to collect money on it.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But I go to a lot of standards meetings so I pretend I know a bit about legal side of things. But let's not confuse that with reality :).
 
#2,395 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen
Amir,


Would it be too much to ask you to post some pictures of your Ruby setup at home?

From what we know, you can't play the "don't have a decent camera" and "don't have picture taking skills" card. :p


Diogen.
I would love to see this as well. Of course you can always say you only have a 25" TV to watch "Survivor" on.
 
#2,396 ·
I posted this in the news thread but somone here migh have the answers
http://www.dvdrama.com/news.php?16659&page=1


this is odd.

Quote:
Dix titres arriveront dans les bacs dès le 20 Novembre prochain....Et cette première vague de titres StudioCanal (la seconde arrivant dès début 2007) apportera un début de réponse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by translation
10 titles will come out on Nov20... the first wave (the second one will be in 2007) will start answering the questions
is SC only going to release 10 titles in 2006



there are some that are
Quote:
DTS-HD Master Audio Anglais stéréo

DTS-HD Hi-Resolution Français Mono, Allemand Stéréo
and

Quote:
TOTAL RECALL

Transfert 16/9 1080p au format respecté 1.85

DTS-HD Master Audio Anglais 5.1

DTS-HD Hi-Resolution Français 4.0, Allemand 5.1
why Mono? Stereo? 4.0?


is there something missing in the specs (i.e. not only DTS) who would want to listen to a movie in Mono? does anyone know why they used these bizarre formats?
 
#2,398 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyP
why Mono? Stereo? 4.0?
Completely random guess:

4.0 would work for a pre-AC3 surround sound mix that would have been encoded to ProLogicL Center - Left - Right - Surround. If they had an old ProTools surround sound mix source as PCM that was originally used for the ProLogic encode, they could have used that for source.


That's the only reason I can think of for 4.0.


Mono or stereo, because that's the available source, I assume.


I'll ask 'em, and see if they're anything public I can share.
 
#2,399 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1
I find it a bit puzzling that Toshiba alone has enough power to control the fate of the DVD forum if most everyone else wanted the BR to be the next format.


Perhaps a bit more detail on how the separation occured would fill us in?
HD-DVD didn't have a majority support - nine of the seventeen steering committee members (nine of the most significant) were initial BDA founders, which is a majority. However, Toshiba chaired the committee and was known to prefer to build on the existing DVD structure (in large part to protect their IP), so it didn't look like a good environment to create the new format in. See http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020222S0020 for a historical reference.
 
#2,400 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
By the same token, Talk's statement around IP in the format is also invalid. DVD Forum does not care what IP someone may have in something. Those matters are decided outside of the forum. To wit, companies can have IP in DVD Forum standards without even being a member. If you own a patent, you own the patent. There is no requirement to join an org to talk about its usage in order to collect money on it.
Of course there's no requirement to participate, but at the same time if you have a significant revenue stream related to the IP of a format you're certainly going to want some insight and influence into how that IP is used. Microsoft didn't have to participate in SMPTE, but it would have been pretty absurd to have VC-1 standardized without your direct involvement...[/quote]
 
#2,401 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Of course there's no requirement to participate, but at the same time if you have a significant revenue stream related to the IP of a format you're certainly going to want some insight and influence into how that IP is used. Microsoft didn't have to participate in SMPTE, but it would have been pretty absurd to have VC-1 standardized without your direct involvement...
Yet VC-1 is BD and we are not....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top