Latest HiDef DVD News - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 04:42 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
side note - article in this weeks Business Week about the competing formats:

Quote:

A War That Hollywood Can't Afford


As DVD sales slow, any delay of next-generation must-haves will cost the studios

For Hollywood executives, the hottest movie in recent months has been the sprawling 1962 epic Lawrence of Arabia. No, Sony Corp.'s Columbia Pictures hasn't rereleased the flick. Instead, it's being shown in private screening rooms around town by Sony executives in a furious behind-the-scenes battle over who will control the industry's Next Big Thing: high-definition DVDs. Like previous format wars, such as the bitter clash that pitted VHS against Betamax videotape standards in the early 1980s, this one promises to have even more action than David Lean's Oscar-winning film.

On one side, Sony, along with 12 leading companies in the computer and consumer-electronics industries, is pushing a format called Blu-ray. It has the capacity to hold as much as six times the number of TV shows and movies that a current DVD holds. Blu-ray also promises spellbinding clarity that prompted some studio execs to swear they saw insignias on the horses in a panoramic shot in Lawrence of Arabia. The competing format, promoted by Toshiba and NEC Corp., has clear pictures, too -- and it can be made more cheaply by using existing DVD plants. But it has less capacity than Blu-ray. Both offer anti-piracy protection.

The prize for winning this contest is huge. The consortium that triumphs in the standards war will clearly be in a position to own an explosive new category of consumer hardware. What's less obvious is how high the stakes are for Tinseltown. Today, DVDs generate as much as 50% of a film's revenues. But that windfall may soon diminish. By 2008, last year's 44% growth in traditional DVD sales will slow to 7%, figures PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC. And by that time as much as half the country could own high-definition TV sets -- on which old DVDs will not have the new clarity. "Folks are going to love the HD picture, and standard DVDs will look pretty tame," says media analyst Harold Vogel. So if the studios don't act quickly to back a unified HD format, there'll be no new revenue stream to replace that big cash cow.

None of this drama is lost on the contenders. The hardware lobbying campaign began late last year when Toshiba enlisted help from software giant Microsoft Corp. to provide it with compression technology to squeeze HD content onto its discs. Microsoft's support helped Toshiba win approval for some of its technology from the DVD Forum, a 200-company group that sets technical specifications. That allowed Toshiba to move forward with tests. Sony, quite uncharacteristically, offered to share its technology. It lined up Panasonic, Philips Electronics (PHG ), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ), Dell (DELL ), and other leading brands, in part, critics say, by offering some a cut of Sony's Blu-ray royalties. Sony execs wouldn't comment, and Microsoft says it remains open to working with the Blu-ray group as well.

So far, Hollywood moguls have chosen to sit on the fence and let the techies fight it out -- a self-destructive decision. As the rollout of digital entertainment accelerates and choices for consumers proliferate beyond DVDs, movie studios can ill afford a delay in the expansion of a rich new marketplace -- or confuse consumers with two competing formats.

For Hollywood's sake, history needs to repeat itself. In the early 1990s, when Sony and Toshiba were fighting a similar war over the then-new DVD, it took a member of the Hollywood Establishment, strong-willed Warner Bros. executive Warren Lieberfarb, to push for a compromise that eventually gave Toshiba and Warner the lion's share of royalties. Problem is, consumer electronics and Hollywood have often been fractious industries, holding back progress because of stubbornness and ego. "We can't let that happen again," says Steve Beeks, president of independent studio Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (LGF ). That's for sure -- because in an age of so many entertainment options, winning consumers' loyalty can be as arduous as a camel ride across the desert.
I bold faced one line because a) I think it's great, b) I think it's funny, and c) I know it'll generate "imagine how much better it'd look in VC9 or MP4" comments....

-> No longer looking for Hi-Vision LDs <-

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 04:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by bwiklem
I bold faced one line because a) I think it's great, b) I think it's funny, and c) I know it'll generate "imagine how much better it'd look in VC9 or MP4" comments....
Since they have the same maximum bitrate and the same codecs, the picture quality would be identical. Only the storage medium will be different. And Blu-ray is more expensive to build and HD-DVD is less. Blu-ray could hold more extras, but not extra quality unless they make another major change.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #543 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 04:48 PM
nyg
AVS Special Member
 
nyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
So far, Hollywood moguls have chosen to sit on the fence and let the techies fight it out -- a self-destructive decision.
I say we give the studios till the end of the month to decide which format they're backing. Either we'll have a clear winner or the fight will continue. Let the chips fall where they may. ;)
nyg is offline  
post #544 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 04:53 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Alimental
And Blu-ray is more expensive to build and HD-DVD is less. Blu-ray could hold more extras, but not extra quality unless they make another major change.
What are you talking about? With VBR, even the 25GB Blu-Ray version could hold a 2 hour MPEG-2 movie + a WM9 version of the movie, and the multi-channel (compressed) soundtracks. Do you have any clue how big most of the movies are that are broadcast?!?!?!?! If you think they're all these 20mbps constant bitrate sustained flicks, you're in a for a rude awakening..

-> No longer looking for Hi-Vision LDs <-

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
post #545 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 05:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Fine:

4:4:4:4, 10 bit please! :)

In all seriousness, a good start would be a new lossless surround sound format. Commercial theaters need one as well, but apparently the commercial theaters aren't doing all that well, so I doubt they'll spend any money for upgrades.
Health Nut is offline  
post #546 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why would you put an MPEG2 movie on with a WM9 version? I didn't say there was no STUPID reason for having too much storage. And that would be a stupid use of it.

I believe an HD-DVD can store 5.5 hours of maximum bit-rate HDTV on a single side of a dual-layer disc.

So, at the exact same quality, you'd get 9 hours out of Blu-ray. Which would be fine if they Blu-ray wasn't more expensive. Even the longest movies are less than 3 hours or so. Now, if I can get LOTR on ONE disc, maybe. But what are the chances of THAT? Studios and record companies find that it's easier to charge more money for more discs, more than then 10¢ it cost to press the other disc. For that reason alone, they'll prefer HD-DVD. No extra pressure to fill a bigger disc like there was with CD. Filling a larger capacity disc costs them money in addion to be more costly to press.

IOW, Blu-ray *could* offset some of the extra cost if studios were to bundle more HD material, but that's so unlikely. It's easier to sell three LOTR discs at $20 each than one trilogy disc at $60. People expect more for less and Blu-ray works against them in this. It *could* work for the consumer, but it probably won't and it pushes the studios more towards HD-DVD which probably has more storage capacity than they'd like to see.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #547 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 06:25 PM
Member
 
Ranutso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Health Nut
By the way, I'd certainly prefer HD-DVD over Blu Ray if Blu-Ray were to not utilize the extra space 'properly'. Certainly a lot of us here had major problems with Sony's previous 'attitude' and are probably still waiting to hear more concrete evidence of VC-9/H.264 support in addition to lossless audio, etc... We would really like to KNOW/SEE what a typical Hollywood movie would be like on HD-DVD vs Blu Ray...
Now you said something important here. You know guys, I really don't think we should be making forecasts on which format is going to "win". Nobody really knows, right? Maybe BD is better, but if HD-DVD becomes as popular as DVDs are, than BD will be another Betamax. If HD-DVD have most codecs people here are asking but BD is more popular than few of us will find a HD-DVD player, and so on.

Just a question a little off. Does anyone know which audio codecs (DD, DTS, SDDS, etc) BluRay is (will) use? For now I'm silently hoping BD win because I really, really don't like the Dolby MLP-only thing on HD-DVD. I think we should have the choice, like we do today on DVDs (and that doesn't make DVDs and players extremely expensive because of the licences, does it?). :mad:

Andre
Ranutso is offline  
post #548 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 06:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 288
MLP is NECESSARY because it will losslessly encode master quality, high resolution audio. DTS, Dolby Digital, and SDDS are all lossy formats (in their present forms) and quite inferior to the master recording. Lossy encoding (for audio) is just plain stupid.

If you have ONE 100% bit-for-bit lossless format used then you only need DTS or DD for backwards compatibility with receivers and pre-amps that aren't ready for the next big thing. You don't need a bunch of codecs competing on the same disc. That is a waste of space.

With all this newly found disc space and more efficient video codecs I would be royally p*ssed off if we didn't get at least the capability of 8 channel discrete 24/96 lossless encoded audio with true 1920x1080p (24 fps, 25 fps, and 30 fps capable) video resolution with no artifacts.

Anything of a lesser quality is just not acceptable to me.

Dan

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #549 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 07:31 PM
Member
 
Ranutso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, two things Dan. One is that DTS is developing (or has developed) their lossless audio too. Look
» http://www.dtsonline.com/cinema/pres...yID=2004&cID=8
I know it is related to cinema, but that can easily go to discs as well, who knows.

Second, sorry to disagree with you (but that's why were are here, right? and that's why we are free, right? ;)) but depending on the bitrate used on any lossy codec there is just no way a human could tell the difference from the original master, which is called transparent. And that would still make smaller files than a completely lossless solution. Just do yourself a blind test with a 320kbps MP3, for example, and you won't be able to tell the difference from the CD. Not even with your expensive equipment. And the MP3 will still be smaller than any lossless solution.

I say this because I honestly don't think HD-DVD will have space for a lossless audio and the HDTV track. Don't you guys forget HDTV is 6 times more difficult to encode than DVDs (1920x1080 is 6 times 720x480). And even WM9 or H.264 will need A LOT bitrate to be worth it.

Andre
Ranutso is offline  
post #550 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tpigeon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You are free to be very, very wrong. Lossless audio is at most 9 mb/sec through 7 speakers using 96/24. If healthnut is right about all movie recordings are done in 48/24, then it becomes 4.5 mb/sec. I belive there is a 30mb/sec bitrate through both formats (though I could have sworn I read BD is 36 somewhere). That leaves 21 mb/sec using 96/24 and 25.5 mb/sec using 48/24. More than enough for the advanced codecs to deliver hd video. DD & DTS are unnecessary and unwanted.

BTW, I hear the difference between compressed and uncompressed soundtracks all the time on my system. I personally hope that BD rom adapts the Windows codecs for video and lossless audio and wins the upcoming format war. BD seems much more expandable capacity wise.
tpigeon2003 is offline  
post #551 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 08:42 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Ranutso
Just a question a little off. Does anyone know which audio codecs (DD, DTS, SDDS, etc) BluRay is (will) use?
As it stands today, Blu-Ray supports Dolby Digital, DTS, and uncompressed PCM (frequency range and bit length not detailed...could be 48/24, could be 96/24)

-> No longer looking for Hi-Vision LDs <-

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
post #552 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 08:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Health Nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 5,431
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Both HD-DVD and Blu Ray have a MINIMUM 36 Mbit/sec bitrate... it can go up to 72 max/peak from what we've read. So the good news is that 36Mbit/sec can be counted on as sustained...

Personally I don't care what lossless compression is used because lossless = lossless .... Unlike DD/DTS wars on which lossy codec degrades the least! Thank goodness for true lossless compression with HD-DVD (and Blu Ray I'm sure, er, I certainly would hope so).

I just hope there is some flexibility so that future *discrete* audio channels and new surround formats (7.1, 7.2, 8.2, 10.4.1 whatever...) can be easily added.
Health Nut is offline  
post #553 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 09:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tpigeon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the info Health Nut. That makes my case even more compelling. You are also right about lossless compression. I figured if they used Microsoft for both audio and video, it might be cheaper overall. I did hear that Microsoft's lossless was the most efficient, but I don't think that makes much of a difference at the end of the day...
tpigeon2003 is offline  
post #554 of 18952 Old 08-09-2004, 09:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
The differences between lossless compressions schemes for audio are minimal at best. They all over around 2:1 or less.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #555 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 06:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
BTW, I hear the difference between compressed and uncompressed soundtracks all the time on my system.
Just playing devil's advocate for fun, but where do you get copies of both compressed and uncompressed masters of the same soundtracks to make these comparisons? If you're comparing different movies with different audio codecs, how do you know the differences aren't in the master recording?

David Forbes

Read excerpts, see cover art and more from my novels at www.davidforbes.net.

My theater
David F is offline  
post #556 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 06:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
robena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally posted by David F
Just playing devil's advocate for fun, but where do you get copies of both compressed and uncompressed masters of the same soundtracks to make these comparisons? If you're comparing different movies with different audio codecs, how do you know the differences aren't in the master recording?
A very good example is Backdraft.

I have both the LD and DVHS version, and the DVHS AC3 track is shrill and painful compared to the LD PCM track.

The amount of lost details going to AC3 is also huge.

Robert
robena is offline  
post #557 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 07:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scaesare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Alimental


There is NO performance advantage to Blu-Ray. None. It can store more information at a higher price. Storage that will almost never ever be used. But you'll pay for it, even if your movie is only 7GB.
This would seem rather short-sighted.

CD's and DVD's are both data storage mediums as well as media playback mediums.

CD's once were so huge that we never needed floppies, "everything" could fit on a CD. They were better than an order of magnitude more storage. We now regularly have software delivered on multiple CD's. Some music albums are multi-disc.

DVD's allowed for storage of a movie + xtra's. They were about an order of magnitdue more storage than CD's. Now we have features that require 2 DVD discs. Some computer/console software will be pushing the limits if single DVD soon.

Do we really want to adopt the next gen of removable storage that has a sinificantly smaller capacity because only one of it's myriad of uses won;t require all of it? I'd much rather have another order of magnitude (well, when dual-side BluRay arrives) more storage when I consider the next 10 years of the format life.

Just consider:

- 1080p (and beyond) media content
- Ever increasing software size
- Multi-channel uncompressed sound
- Multiple formats on a single disc
- More xtra's
- Unkown application "X"

I don't want to assume that I'll never really need more than what I am using currently. Especially of the delta cost appears to be minimal.

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #558 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 07:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tpigeon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by David F
Just playing devil's advocate for fun, but where do you get copies of both compressed and uncompressed masters of the same soundtracks to make these comparisons? If you're comparing different movies with different audio codecs, how do you know the differences aren't in the master recording?
Concert DVD's
tpigeon2003 is offline  
post #559 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scaesare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Alimental

No standards, just like Firewire.
And that was a dismal failure.

:rolleyes:

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #560 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 08:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Well to be fair, usually such DVDs have PCM stereo vs. compressed surround---different mixes. I don't think you would want to make definite comparisons in those cases. I think robena's example is better, though even then there are likely different mixes.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #561 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 08:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally posted by robena
The amount of lost details going to AC3 is also huge.
Have you are anyone else used a Dolby DP569 Encoder and a Dolby DP562 Decoder to compare the original audio to that of a encode/decode process? I can tell you that it is very difficult to distinguish between the original and the encode/decode audio (at 448 kbs [or 384 kbs in many cases]).

The encode/decode takes several milliseconds to process so you will need a method to delay your original audio. The use of a Sonic Solutions or Avid audio workstation will accomplish this (just dump your five tracks to another five tracks by the desired delay time).

Until very recent years most sound tracks were mastered to a Tascam DA-88 (or ADAT). This device records 8 digital audio channel at 16 bit x 48kbs.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #562 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tpigeon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
True, I have never done the MP3 compressed ~ 4:1 using the exact same mix. Somehow, I think I would be able to tell the difference as the differences between DD and DTS vs PCM are not small (though it could be due entirely to the mix, I hear the same results over and over again). The guy (Armin?) from Microsoft who posts about the WM9 audio codec, can also tell the difference between lossless and compressed audio and he would like to see lossless as well. I guarantee you he has tried all types of lossy compression schemes on the same mix as that is his job.
tpigeon2003 is offline  
post #563 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 09:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The MPEG2 data stream required for HDTV is, I think, 19.3 Mbps for broadcast although I think it can be done at up to 27Mbps. However, MPEG4 is something like twice the efficiency, so let's just say 15Mbps for an awesome image. Both formats are 36Mbps capacity. DVD-A requires 7.5 Mbps for 5.1 MLP. So, you've got a solid 20Mbps (well, I'm sure there's other stuff going on), but you could seriously do 8.2 easily at 24/96 and you could even go 16.4 at CD quality without any problem.

I'd rather, however give up some resolution to have more channels and I'd even go lossy if we could go for better picture. Digital sound is a lot closer to perfection than digital video. I'd give up some sound to get higher frame rates or greater bit depth. While I think AC3 is subpar, I wouldn't let some lossy compression such as DTS get in the way of a better picture. Of course, that's not going to happen, so we might as well get more better audio.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #564 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 09:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by scaesare
[b]This would seem rather short-sighted.

Do we really want to adopt the next gen of removable storage that has a sinificantly smaller capacity because only one of it's myriad of uses won;t require all of it? I'd much rather have another order of magnitude (well, when dual-side BluRay arrives) more storage when I consider the next 10 years of the format life.

Just consider:

- 1080p (and beyond) media content
- Ever increasing software size
- Multi-channel uncompressed sound
- Multiple formats on a single disc
- More xtra's
- Unkown application "X"
While I understand the point, I was saying no "performance" advantage. This is true. And it's also true that HD-DVD can easily handle any movie and even a small to medium mini-series and, if you take out the commercials, probably even the largest one.

The thing is, Blu-ray isn't the end all/be all either. Someday, maybe 5 or 10 years from now, it will be replaced. Now, we can use the existing infrastructure to create a nicely done and highly suitable "super DVD" or we can throw everything away and start from scratch. I think the former makes more sense. It's hard to say what these formats will be replace by, but they will be replaced. And then will have to start from scratch again. HD-DVD makes a lot of sense as the first HD compatible disc format. It certainly won't be the last.

And, to be honest, I'd be perfectly happy, even excited with MPEG4 on standard DVD which would still fit most movies rather easily and pull off HDTV. I think you can get 2-3 hours on a dual layer standard DVD! I would just rather have more than 5 discrete channels and less compression for sound if possible.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #565 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 09:57 AM
nyg
AVS Special Member
 
nyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Blu-ray discs can fit an entire season of an SD show on one disc. Imagine Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers Extended Edition (four DVD set) fitting on one disc. I'd say the larger capacity of this format is well worthwhile. My only hope is that Blu-ray uses jewel cases as if we're going to go with "less" in any department I'd prefer it be in the shelf storage area, not the disc's content itself. ;)
nyg is offline  
post #566 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yes, but it won't do all of The Simpsons on one disc, therefore, it's not viable :D

Maybe there should be a mandatory "% of disc space used" on Blu-ray so you can enjoy all the extra free space you've gotten!

As for multiple movies on one disc, you can pretty well forget about that. I don't think it will happen. It's not impossible. But not likely.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
post #567 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 11:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
AnthonyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 17,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
As for multiple movies on one disc, you can pretty well forget about that. I don't think it will happen. It's not impossible. But not likely.
why?
AnthonyP is offline  
post #568 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 11:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,066
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 387
Joel:

"Toshiba makes a lot of computers as well, doncha know."

Notebooks. Not exactly the bastion of 30GB removable storage formats. And besides, Toshiba's market share is noise vs. Dell + HP.

"You can argue that Microsoft is dumping if it's in order to gain competitive advantage and eliminate a competitor."

Which they are.

" I suspect dumping is hard to prove and has to be blatent as it has to do with intent as well as the cost. "

Yup, making your accusation about Sony being accused of dumping for putting a component into their PS3 about as ludicrous as any you'll find at AVS.

"I just think it's "different" from DVD for all the wrong reasons."

And also the right ones --> Make a break, set up for the future.

" And that is, they don't want to lose DVD Round II to Toshiba again and they want maximum results from their patent pool."

Shared 11 ways this time. Or better yet, let's let Warner mollify Toshiba once again by handing them the vast majority of the royalties and still having Toshiba embittered they didn't get the whole enchilada.

"what I can't understand is hoping that it beats out HD-DVD which is a far more common sense and cost effective solution to bringing HD into the home."

50GB vs. 30GB. In the actual real world, that advantage is mamoth. Not to mention a much more rapid path to actual products. But why should we root for that when we can cheer on something like "kinda backward compatible with existing production processes." Yeah, that's a cheer. :rolleyes:

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

Healthnut wrote:

"
I'm glad for the competition (for the time being), but again, all things being equal, 50 Gig is hard to sneeze at... Personally, the more storage space, the better the bottom line will be fullfilled. "

Precisely.

"
I haven't seen any convincing arguments that says Blu Ray would cost consumers more than HD-DVD."

There aren't any.

That said, Health Nut, you are still equating BluRay with Sony. I think that's an error.

=====

And back to Joel:

"Based on existing business models, it seems HD-DVD has a clear advantage in hardware/software cost whether or not we see part or all of it at retail. "

But this is wrong.

The hardware cost advantage is guaranteed to go to BluRay based on drive volumes for PS3 alone. Assuming it actually makes it into PCs, Sony, HP and Dell will have shipped 10 million drives long before HD-DVD has shipped 1 million. That creates a situation where even if a BluRay drive were 2x as expensive (and it's the same cost, but no matter) it'd be <1/2 as much within the first year due to learning curve effects.

And as for your constantly trotted out figures about disk pressing costs -- a nearly irrelevant component of the retail price of a disk -- it's all hypothetical right now. By the time the movies are being pressed, there is no reason to doubt a BluRay disc plant can't be every bit as inexpensive as a DVD plant.

"
This reminds me of the SXRD and LCOS threads. "Ooh, ooh, Sony and JVC claim that 3000:1 contrast ratios are possible. Someday. Maybe. ZZZZzzzzzzzz". And then they don't deliver, while DLP makes yet another giant leap."

Yes. BluRay is essentially DLP -- backed by nearly everyone -- while HD-DVD is the LCOS camped, backed by nearly no one with "advantages" many find hard to perceive. (Note: I like LCOS actually more than DLP.)

Oh, and this nonsense about the storage never being used really has to stop. There are so many multi-disc set DVDs that will require 1 BluRay disc or 2 HD-DVD discs. The TV-shows-on-DVD biz is now $2 billion!!! I easily demonstrated above the savings that could be generated there. 2 instead of 1, 3 instead of 2, 4 instead of 2.... Not just discs, but packaging. Studios own TV shows too.

And as relates to this (source unknown? maybe Joel?) "As for multiple movies on one disc, you can pretty well forget about that. I don't think it will happen. It's not impossible. But not likely."

Kill Bill Vols. 1 and 2 would make a great single disc. So would things like Spiderman + sequel. Not to mention "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Manchurian Candidate", "Sabrina" and "Sabrina", "Vanilla Sky" and "Abre Los Ojos", etc. etc. Movie fans -- like myself -- love this kind of stuff. Those discs -- on BluRay at least -- would cost hardly anything more to produce but could be sold for more and would likely sell more units. But why would the studios want that?

In the end, it is far, far too persuasive to have the additional space. And since all else is equal performance-wise and having to build new plants / lines is actually desirable in a way (it'll make it that much harder for the Asian piracy shops to go into the disc duping business), I'm persuaded by this thread that the debate can only tip one way.

I look for an announcement as early as CES 2005. And unlike the last time, this one is easier. The studios simply agree to throw their support behind BluRay and Toshiba / NEC can feel free to bring their product to market minus any content.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #569 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tpigeon2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,088
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have also read that it is possible to have more layers using Blu-Ray. One article said it was possible to have 200GB discs one day...
tpigeon2003 is offline  
post #570 of 18952 Old 08-10-2004, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Alimental's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Williamsburg, PA
Posts: 1,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by rogo
"Toshiba makes a lot of computers as well, doncha know."

Notebooks. Not exactly the bastion of 30GB removable storage formats. And besides, Toshiba's market share is noise vs. Dell + HP.
Don't forget that Microsoft could choose HD-DVD for X-Box 3 or even move it forward into X-Box 2 if it's ready. And IBM appears to support and, I believe Intel. And Microsoft has HD-DVD on its roadmap. Blu-Ray is not on their roadmap yet, if ever.
Quote:

Yup, making your accusation about Sony being accused of dumping for putting a component into their PS3 about as ludicrous as any you'll find at AVS.
Why is that exactly? I'm not saying it's a provable accusation, only that they could as they have in the past, lose money on a technology in order to make it viable. Build a huge amount of drives and jam it into a product that will be purchased anyway. I'm not sure why you'd call that ludicrous excepto be an ass.
Quote:

And also the right ones --> Make a break, set up for the future.
Sorry, the "advantages" of Blu-ray aren't sufficient to "make a break". Extra space that isn't needed and no performance advantages. If there were actual performance advantages, I'd agree. HD-DVD can do everything that an HT enthusiast actually needs. And has double the capacity of DVD which most people actually love. Making a break in order to line Sony's pockets and give us unused space on an overkill solution doesn't make sense to me. It's a complex solution to a simple problem.
Quote:

Shared 11 ways this time. Or better yet, let's let Warner mollify Toshiba once again by handing them the vast majority of the royalties and still having Toshiba embittered they didn't get the whole enchilada.
I don't care WHO gets the royalties if they have a more sensible solution. And that is Toshbia/NEC.
Quote:

50GB vs. 30GB. In the actual real world, that advantage is mamoth. Not to mention a much more rapid path to actual products.
Useable for what? A typical movie with extras will likely use more like 5-10GB at most.
Quote:

I haven't seen any convincing arguments that says Blu Ray would cost consumers more than HD-DVD."

There aren't any.
Uhhhh, huge equipment replacement cost, inability to use existing manufacturing technologies, more difficult and likely less reliable drive mechanisms, totally new hardware production lines, lower disc yields - pick any two or three. If you can't see the arguments there, you're too close minded to argue with. How much is a first gen Blu-ray again? $4000. Gee, that's hardly more than a DVD player :rolleyes:
Quote:

The hardware cost advantage is guaranteed to go to BluRay based on drive volumes for PS3 alone. Assuming it actually makes it into PCs, Sony, HP and Dell will have shipped 10 million drives long before HD-DVD has shipped 1 million. That creates a situation where even if a BluRay drive were 2x as expensive (and it's the same cost, but no matter) it'd be <1/2 as much within the first year due to learning curve effects.
Only if Sony can make Blu-ray drives for little enough to fit in PS3 by the time an HD-DVD drive goes into X-Box 2/3. Also, even if it DOES go into computers, less than 1 in 10 will likely have it up front as a DVD-R will be far less pricey and more useable. You're assuming instant market dominance. If HD-DVD was even close, it would be less expensive. Blu-ray would likely have to outsell HD-DVD by 5:1 to approach the cost any time soon.
Quote:

And as for your constantly trotted out figures about disk pressing costs -- a nearly irrelevant component of the retail price of a disk -- it's all hypothetical right now. By the time the movies are being pressed, there is no reason to doubt a BluRay disc plant can't be every bit as inexpensive as a DVD plant.
Hardly irrelevant if you add the cost of the equipment, facilities and yield. HD-DVD is WAY ahead in these issues. There's a LOT of infrastructure that needs to be changed to produce Blu-rays in bulk. Sony's new pressing gear is HALF as productive as current HD-DVD capable machines already in a plant as we speak and ready to press away. Talk about jamming your head in the sand!
Quote:

Yes. BluRay is essentially DLP -- backed by nearly everyone -- while HD-DVD is the LCOS camped, backed by nearly no one with "advantages" many find hard to perceive. (Note: I like LCOS actually more than DLP.)
Perhaps. Or, more like TI is ONE company that is kicking the hell out of a dozen companies doing LCD, LCOS and DILA. If the studios prefer HD-DVD, Blu-ray is only around as long as Sony decides it is. You can't announce the success, superiority or price of Blu-ray until the studios decide what they're going to do. But *I* can rightfully say that HD-DVD is less expensive to produce for the foreseeable future.
Quote:

Oh, and this nonsense about the storage never being used really has to stop. There are so many multi-disc set DVDs that will require 1 BluRay disc or 2 HD-DVD discs. The TV-shows-on-DVD biz is now $2 billion!!! I easily demonstrated above the savings that could be generated there. 2 instead of 1, 3 instead of 2, 4 instead of 2.... Not just discs, but packaging. Studios own TV shows too.
Why? HD-DVD has more than twice the capacity of DVD. And 2 HD-DVDs cost less to produce than a single BD. And will until they can get far better yields.
Quote:

Kill Bill Vols. 1 and 2 would make a great single disc. So would things like Spiderman + sequel. Not to mention "The Manchurian Candidate" and "The Manchurian Candidate", "Sabrina" and "Sabrina", "Vanilla Sky" and "Abre Los Ojos", etc. etc. Movie fans -- like myself -- love this kind of stuff. Those discs -- on BluRay at least -- would cost hardly anything more to produce but could be sold for more and would likely sell more units. But why would the studios want that?
Because if they put it on one disc, you will expect to pay as much as $10-$20 less. However, it would only save them 25-50¢ to do it. They *might* on some things, but it isn't likely. And I'll bet on that if you wish. I'd say less that 1% off discs contain more than 1 movie. It's not in the studio's interest.
Quote:

In the end, it is far, far too persuasive to have the additional space. And since all else is equal performance-wise and having to build new plants / lines is actually desirable in a way (it'll make it that much harder for the Asian piracy shops to go into the disc duping business), I'm persuaded by this thread that the debate can only tip one way.
Okay, that *may* be a valid argument. And if the studios agree, Blu-ray will win. But they're not due to weigh in for at least a year or more. Blu-ray won't sell without movies. HD-DVD however could sell as a "stealth" product. Drop in the drive, sell for a little more. HD-DVD players will be likely be <$500 by fall of 2005. I doubt Blu-ray will be so affordable. But we'll just have to see. NEC can whip out drives very cheaply and make them available to anyone who wants in.

Joel Bernstein
____________________________________________________
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C Clarke
Alimental is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Software Media Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off