Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please - Page 67 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1981 of 4623 Old 08-30-2006, 11:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
Cjplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
I said getting new technology out takes time. HD-DVD is just warmed-over old technology! :eek:
Then MPEG-2 on BD is what? Frozen-over, of drinking age, and consistently losing resolution in comparison to its 8-bit 4:2:0 source technology? Both formats have something new about them. At least HD baked for the right amount of time. BD still needs a little simmering even according to Sony!

BTW, which is older? Java or iHD (Javascript)? The substrate is newer than HD's. Quit talking age and start talking usage.

Cjplay.
Cjplay is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1982 of 4623 Old 08-30-2006, 11:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Cjplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
I said getting new technology out takes time. HD-DVD is just warmed-over old technology! :eek:
Then MPEG-2 on BD is what? Frozen-over, of drinking age, and consistently losing resolution in comparison to its 8-bit 4:2:0 source technology? Or were you talking about pit-based optical media invented in the late 80's along with MPEG-2? Thanks Sony for new technology! :rolleyes:

Don't talk age. Talk usage and combinations of that usage.

Cjplay.
Cjplay is offline  
post #1983 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
It’s irrelevant that the player was released and is currently being sold and is unable to meet its own specs? Try telling that to all the people that have spent one thousand dollars on this player that it is irrelevant. BD50’s was/is one of this formats biggest selling points but I guess its irrelevant as long as promises of the future will make everything alright.
The HD-A1 didn't fully support iHD network connectivity upon release, either - one of the firmware upgrades is said to have added it. How is this any different? Does a feature really matter if a)there is no content available at a given time which requires that feature and b)the feature can be easily enabled upon availability of content which requires it?
Quote:
Yes if the player is unable to meet the required specs it should be delayed not released and sold as fraudulently be able to perform functions that it can not.
Do you really think the satisfied BD-P1000 owners (and there are plenty) would rather have waited another few months to purchase a player purely for the sake of supporting a feature which they can't presently make use of anyway rather than having the player available without that feature enabled and providing a firmware update to support it when needed? Even if you think so, the vast majority of satisfied owners certainly wouldn't. Get used to it, firmware updates are now a reality for many of our consumer electronics (Treo's, MP3 players, TV's, GPS, etc.).

And note that none of my comments above should be construed to imply the BD-P1000 doesn't (or does) support BD50 today. I'm merely addressing Tom's hypothetical complaint.

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #1984 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PFC5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
And note that none of my comments above should be construed to imply the BD-P1000 doesn't (or does) support BD50 today. I'm merely addressing Tom's hypothetical complaint.
Sure you are. ;)

Had to move my HT gear list to my profile so click below link to see it:

HT Gear list HERE
PFC5 is offline  
post #1985 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobertR1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
The HD-A1 didn't fully support iHD network connectivity upon release, either - one of the firmware upgrades is said to have added it. How is this any different? Does a feature really matter if a)there is no content available at a given time which requires that feature and b)the feature can be easily enabled upon availability of content which requires it?
Let me know which firmware will enable BD-Live on the Samsung, will you? Ohhhh, that's right. It's not part of the spec till 2007 meaning it might be seen around 2008, if enough stars line up.

Talk,

It's getting really old to hear the "wait for it!" line repeatedly. Start delivering. Infact, since YOU are the man for BD-J, instead of knoking the Toshiba, tell us more about what and when we can see BD-J in action on majority of the BR movies? In another post you stated that BDHV, or whatever the acronym is, can do all the things iHD is presently doing except for iHD. Why isn't it?
RobertR1 is offline  
post #1986 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinch
Talk - since it is evident (as suspected) the PS3 (BLURAY) "spring launch" was marketing speak to ward off 360 and HD-DVD launches.... i have three strategic questions to follow up with...
Not having been privy to the actual discussions related to launch dates and such, I'll simply provide my opinion/best guess:

Quote:
1. did HD-DVD's $500 pricetag and good launch buzz effect bluray in launching significantly EARLIER than they wanted or prepared for?
No. The reduced price only offers a short-term advantage, since it's always been assumed the PS3 would be available at a similar price, and the economies of scale created by the PS3 will help drive down BD component costs. I don't think anyone expected HD-DVD to get any better buzz than Blu-ray; I doubt anyone anticipated that the initial BD titles wouldn't be as well-received as the initial HD-DVD titles, especially since only a few people would have had the opportunity to see the initial titles prior to release.

Quote:
2. regardless, can you explain how Bluray is so NOT ready for primetime in regards to players (sony included, no interactivity, no internet, etc.) and software (encoders, 2-layer, no combos) going into Fall 2006?
Sure. On the player side it's primarily due to a more ambitious specification which simply takes longer to fully realize. On the software side I think it's primarily politics which prevented most of the studios from being willing to work with Microsoft (or vice versa, depending on who you ask) for VC-1 encoder support coupled with H.264 encoding technology being less mature.

Quote:
3. other than launching PS3 and some more SOS titles on shelves accordingly... do you see any sense of URGENCY in bluray mfg and studios? Customers and analysts are sorta shaking their heads in disbelief... is this ignored?
No, but it's still very, very early in the game. The majority of homes don't even have HD-capable monitors let alone an interest in spending 10x what a standard DVD player costs. A year from now you'll likely see millions of PS3's in the marketplace, BD players from a half-dozen or more vendors, BD50 discs and advanced interactivity commonplace, and PQ and title selection equal to or better than HD-DVD. A slow start to the format has little bearing on long-term prospects for success unless major players start abandoning ship, which there are certainly no indications of.

Quote:
Your comments are appreciated.
Thank you!

- Talk

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #1987 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 01:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1
Let me know which firmware will enable BD-Live on the Samsung, will you? Ohhhh, that's right. It's not part of the spec till 2007 meaning it might be seen around 2008, if enough stars line up.
First of all, the Samsung never claimed BD-Live support. Second, it's always been a part of the final spec, it simply isn't required until 2007.

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #1988 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 04:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwakaruk
Personal question for Amir (hopefully not under NDA :) )

How many e-correspondences do you go through in an average day (all e-mails, posts on AVS, text messages, etc..) Just curious, must be a ton.
You know, I have never counted either. I reckon I average about 75-100 emails a day. When I managed my older organization (almost 1000 employees), I probably averaged 2X that.

As to AVS Forum, in two years, I have gone from 1000 posts to nearly 5000. The first 1000 was on other topics and the rest have mostly been about this topic. I squeezed in a lot of posts lately due to working more or less from home/combination vacation during August. As I get busy with work again, the volume is going to go down.

The darn subscription notices combined with oulook pop ups means that AVS Forum never leaves you alone on a topic you have passion in :).

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #1989 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 04:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Cjplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenDover
@CJPlay

can you comment or provide insight/reason to why corpse bride is being released for bd on 9/26 before any release on hd dvd?

this was on the very first hd dvd demo disc.

tia
I can't do title-specific reasoning for the BD before the HD. However, I really do look forward to both releases and any jaw-drops that come with them. Hopefully in time for Halloween for the HD, but no guarantees, only speculation. WHV has their scheduling of releases and reasoning.

Cjplay.
Cjplay is offline  
post #1990 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 05:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
Cjplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty
Insiders: Is that accurate that Blu-ray can never have a SD DVD and Blu-ray combination disk released and that HD DVD DL30/DVD9 combination disks will soon be released?
I've heard yields are coming up on the 30/9 combo format. Whether or not it'll be released this year, I'm not sure.

It is accurate that it can't do it right now. But, I'm sure if people actually wanted it (Like Gary Murrell's "Combos must die a horrible death" comment?) then BD would find some way to do that. The article is accurate that the current physical layers can't support it.

Cjplay.
Cjplay is offline  
post #1991 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 05:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
Cjplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tormond
So I guess that BD using a OLD technology like Java was going backwards and really should have used the NEW technology like iHD then? And should have MANDATED NEW audio Advanced audio instead of the LPCM that I have on my laserdiscs? Oh and maybe used NEW transfers of films instead of the ones that seem to have come from VHS tapes? Oh yeah and NEW codecs instead of 10 year old Mpeg2?
FYI, MPEG-2 was ratified in 1988. It's 18 years old and was in use in 1992/3 by older broadcast systems/models.
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/research/f...deo/mpeg2.html

Cjplay.
Cjplay is offline  
post #1992 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 05:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Cjplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwakaruk
Question for the codec experts:

Is MPEG-2 a mature codec for HD playback? MPEG-2 is very mature for SD-DVD playback bit rates but what about for the higher level encodes. Are the negative artifacts completely linear with regard to bit rates or are some more logarithmic in nature ie; become significantly worse the higher the data rate being compressed. I wonder this because the best DVD’s coded with MPEG-2 look pretty good to me and I fail to see why the initial Sony releases couldn’t put out a great picture with the 25GB’s. Is there much room left for improving MPEG-2 with regard to HD video?
I'll say on that there are several HD MPEG-2 encoders that do a very good job at 15-18Mbps ABR and 25/30Mbps peak. Mostly software which can be slowed to do aggressive motion estimation and bit assignment. TMPEG makes one in the form of V2.52 that did a sweet job at 15/25 in some early tests of HD-VOD. There's hardware using the ASI transport that made some pretty decent HD-VOD outputs at 15Mbps muxed and 19.1Mbps muxed even 3+ years ago. Just look at HBO's HD broadcast transmission at 19Mbps CBR muxed (so ~18 for just video). That's realtime, folks. I've personally not seen a hardware one with 3rd pass capabilities other than Digital Vision and Sony's for HD-res. Personally, I would've picked DV's, even if it is $250k per station, to launch BD with and ensure it creates some format dominance with good PQ, but that's just me.

Don't forget that DVD's run in the 4-6Mbps ABR with a 7-9Mbps peak. The bitrate application in MPEG-2 is usually linear (you add bits, you see bitrate/filesize increase) versus VC-1 and H.264 which are somewhat logarithmic and an arcing scale of bitrate where you'll start to see bitrate return for QP lowering arcing lower and lower (lower QP's, more bits, but not linearly). However, history has shown that resolution increase in video compression does not mean more bits need to be used to get good quality. If 1080psf30 is 6 times the resolution of SD, then why aren't the bitrates that high (so 24-30Mbps)? Answer, the picture structure removes redundancies and those movements of pixels happen over the same visual, but just at a higher resolution, so MV's are just longer, but still used. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea and that's only one of the several answers why in MPEG-2, let alone VC-1 and H.264.

And to your last question, not really, at least where some encoder chip manufacturers are concerned. Others just need to get to the first's levels. You know who you are...

Cjplay.
Cjplay is offline  
post #1993 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 06:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TomsHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglassville, PA
Posts: 4,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
The HD-A1 didn't fully support iHD network connectivity upon release, either - one of the firmware upgrades is said to have added it. How is this any different? Does a feature really matter if a)there is no content available at a given time which requires that feature and
The difference is Blurays main selling point is larger disk capacity and many bought into the format expecting to see movies released on BD50’s, dates were set and then delayed and then pulled altogether for these movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
b)the feature can be easily enabled upon availability of content which requires it?
First of all this is just more political spin, if its so easy that why are customers still without it.

Saying the one problem of reading the disks is irrelevant because of problems of not being able to produce the disks in the first place is really quite pathetic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Do you really think the satisfied BD-P1000 owners (and there are plenty) would rather have waited another few months to purchase a player purely for the sake of supporting a feature which they can't presently make use of anyway rather than having the player available without that feature enabled and providing a firmware update to support it when needed? Even if you think so, the vast majority of satisfied owners certainly wouldn't.
I think the owners would expect the players to perform the way Bluray has marketed it. I think many of the owners would have saved there money and not have purchased the player at all had they known that the bottom line would be that Bluray is still unable to produce or even read 50 gb disks.

You seem to keep mentioning the majority as being satisfied and when I look around this forum I see more posts and threads about complaints, disappointments, and people who have already returned these players. I see people that look forward to the format improving to meet what should already be available but I don’t see any that are satisfied with how it is now.

If the majority of customers are satisfied would anyone from the blu-ray camp be willing to refund the money from customers who are not satisfied? I’m sure this shouldn’t be to many dissatisfied customers by your own estimates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Get used to it, firmware updates are now a reality for many of our consumer electronics (Treo's, MP3 players, TV's, GPS, etc.).
Get used to it… I guess that should be the slogan for Bluray owners.

You seem to imply I have some issues with firmware updates, I do not. I am a Software Developer and completely understand the need for updates. But there is a large difference from fixing an unknown bug to releasing a product that was known to be unable to perform one of its main functions.

And yet I still don’t see any of these updates you keep referring to as being easy. Its been almost 2 months since it was said an update would switch the chip settings but that is still not here. Bluray has been working unsuccessfully for what almost 5 years not to get DL disks working properly, have been unable to fix the problem before releasing the product to the market, and yet now it will be easy to fix?

What has changed? I asked you several weeks ago on this very forum if there has been any progress made with the problems plaguing these disks at which time there was still no answer but now it will be easy to fix, I’m not buying that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
And note that none of my comments above should be construed to imply the BD-P1000 doesn't (or does) support BD50 today. I'm merely addressing Tom's hypothetical complaint.
If the player was able to read these disks you would be the first person posting that on this forum. I find it hard to believe that you spend so much time defending this “hypothetical†situation but seem to be un-able to confirm whether or not it is true.
TomsHT is offline  
post #1994 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 06:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
Cjplay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brea, CA
Posts: 648
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Talk, first off, thanks for not leaving in the face of being nearly yelled at and criticized. You do add positively to this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Sure. On the player side it's primarily due to a more ambitious specification which simply takes longer to fully realize. On the software side I think it's primarily politics which prevented most of the studios from being willing to work with Microsoft (or vice versa, depending on who you ask) for VC-1 encoder support coupled with H.264 encoding technology being less mature.
(Totally objective question here) Besides the higher-density substrate and 3rd layer of copy protection (bit scrambling as it gets written, correct?), what do you feel, if anything, makes the BDA spec more ambitious than the DVD Forum's HD spec?

Quote:
No, but it's still very, very early in the game. The majority of homes don't even have HD-capable monitors let alone an interest in spending 10x what a standard DVD player costs. A year from now you'll likely see millions of PS3's in the marketplace, BD players from a half-dozen or more vendors, BD50 discs and advanced interactivity commonplace, and PQ and title selection equal to or better than HD-DVD. A slow start to the format has little bearing on long-term prospects for success unless major players start abandoning ship, which there are certainly no indications of.

- Talk
I've got to agree with you there. It is early in the game and I've not heard rumblings of "abandon ship". I'd wait to see what New Line, Disney (still out at the moment, right?), and (don't laugh too hard) the Porn industry ( :eek: ) goes. Like will Jenna Jameson's company go BD or HD? There actually are people who quietly want to know! ;)

Cjplay.
Cjplay is offline  
post #1995 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 07:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tormond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Farmville, NC
Posts: 1,260
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cjplay
FYI, MPEG-2 was ratified in 1988. It's 18 years old and was in use in 1992/3 by older broadcast systems/models.
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/research/f...deo/mpeg2.html

Cjplay.

Thanks Cj for the clarification.

Quote:
Talk, first off, thanks for not leaving in the face of being nearly yelled at and criticized. You do add positively to this discussion
BTW I am not trying to attack Talk for his opinions. He is clearly biased towards BD (and rightfully so) so I am merely asking the questions as to why they chose to do things a certain way (as are most here). When he answers back in an antagonistic way and calls our concerns "irrelevant" and that the horse HDDVD chose to back "Warmed-over old technology" it irritates me a bit. I feel I asked teh question based on the same tone that the quote was written in. I did not want to be seen as yelling (I use the CAPS for emphasis on words not as a yell) but I was asking an honest question. Based on his "insiders view" I was asking why the the BDA would choose certain technologies instead of the ones that they did. He has deemed it not necessary to answer my questions and that is his right but my questions remain. Serious questions/concerns about what a format can/can't do are what makes formats win or fail IMO.

As a serious question. Why exactly did BDA choose to have at a minimum of 2 sets of specifications out of the gate? It would seem that their early adopters (who bought the 1K+ players) would be irritated to find that they have to possibly buy another player to get the features? I understand not being able to do additional hardware (The Samsung won't decode the advanced audio codecs and never will but I think most of the early adopters knew this going in) but what about the interactivity? It just seems silly to me (or maybe I am just silly) to tell folks that Here is a format. It will do this, it will do this, it will do this, but it really won't do half of it until Rev 2.0 which may or may not require a hardware change? Any idea on why they chose to have 2 sets of "specs" from the beginning? Was it a problem in getting it working properly or just a rush to get product out the door or what? I am just curious and this has been one of my main reasons (the main being price) that I havent picked up a player. I just think that in an already confusing format war having to check a disk for whether it may/may not play in my player seems sort of short sighted.
tormond is offline  
post #1996 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 07:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cjplay
FYI, MPEG-2 was ratified in 1988. It's 18 years old and was in use in 1992/3 by older broadcast systems/models.
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/research/f...deo/mpeg2.html

Cjplay.
You're reading the link incorrectly. MPEG itelf was formed in 1988. MPEG-2 was not ratified until November 1994.

http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/sta...g-2/mpeg-2.htm

The first large scale MPEG-2 deployment was DirecTV in 1994. The very first encoders for DirecTV were not MPEG-2, but actually MPEG-1 at 704x480 resolution (sometimes called MPEG-1.5 although for those developing it, we just called it "unconstrained MPEG-1").

I remember watching the OJ Simpson chase on the DirecTV test receiver we had at C-Cube in June of 1994 while DirecTV was still doing system testing.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #1997 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 07:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DaViD Boulet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Washington DC area
Posts: 6,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Talk,

thanks for your contributions.

Quote:
Do you really think the satisfied BD-P1000 owners (and there are plenty) would rather have waited another few months to purchase a player purely for the sake of supporting a feature which they can't presently make use of anyway rather than having the player available without that feature enabled and providing a firmware update to support it when needed? Even if you think so, the vast majority of satisfied owners certainly wouldn't. Get used to it, firmware updates are now a reality for many of our consumer electronics (Treo's, MP3 players, TV's, GPS, etc.).
That's perhaps one of the most logical, balanced, and objective statements we've seen on the thread and it's works in favor of BOTH formats. In fact, it's what many pro-HD DVD advocates have been saying all along in regards to the Toshiba A1. I don't understand the backlash when the same rationale is applied to BD hardware as well.

1080p and lossless audio. EVERY BD should have them both.
DaViD Boulet is offline  
post #1998 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 08:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Ian_S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: (Old) Hampshire, UK
Posts: 232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
On the subject of the Samsung, if it's using the same Broadcom decoder as the Toshiba then would it not be possible for Sumsung to provide a major update to the supported codecs to add things such as multi-channel DD, DD+, DTS etc. on-board decoding? Or does the Toshiba use other IC's for that?

Just a thought.
Ian_S is offline  
post #1999 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 08:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,375
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_S
On the subject of the Samsung, if it's using the same Broadcom decoder as the Toshiba then would it not be possible for Sumsung to provide a major update to the supported codecs to add things such as multi-channel DD, DD+, DTS etc. on-board decoding? Or does the Toshiba use other IC's for that?

Just a thought.
Yes, other DSPs are used for audio in the Toshiba which do not exist. You can also see features lacking in base management in the Samsung compared to Toshiba for this reason.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #2000 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 08:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
No, but it's still very, very early in the game. The majority of homes don't even have HD-capable monitors let alone an interest in spending 10x what a standard DVD player costs. A year from now you'll likely see millions of PS3's in the marketplace, BD players from a half-dozen or more vendors, BD50 discs and advanced interactivity commonplace, and PQ and title selection equal to or better than HD-DVD. A slow start to the format has little bearing on long-term prospects for success unless major players start abandoning ship, which there are certainly no indications of. Thank you! - Talk
Thanks for the post Talk.

This is what i thought you'd say, given the actions of Bluray group to date and their large "suport".... they believe they will win a slow war simply by numbers (more soldiers). With this in mind i do believe alot of possible customers will take a "wait and see" attitude now (fool me once...) since PQ is NOT up to par today and not likely tomorrow. Time will tell

If i could follow up with a question... have any notable BRD hardware companies decided to RETHINK THEIR TIMING/DECISION of releasing $999-1400 players SOON in wake of the PS3 given the poor timing and high cost, coupled with missing features (no HDMI v1.3?) From a business standpoint, it's tough to understand why any HW maker would not just skip BD v1 and wait until fall 2007 to design a cheaper, stealth machine, "full spec" BD player that can acually compete on shelves with both the HD-A1 and $600 PS3.

Thanks!

DVD's are about movies & people watch them in living rooms, how many people actually use their computer drives to sit and watch movies- Bluray's Andy Parsons
chinch is offline  
post #2001 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 09:42 AM
 
briankmonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 13,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sorry if asked alread. Read this in another thread (probably in here as well)

"45 Mb disc coming triple layer coming although may require new player"

Is there any definite word if the HD-DVD add-on for the xbox360 will support Triple Layer discs?
briankmonkey is offline  
post #2002 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Sutliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[quote=Talkstr8t]Even if you think so, the vast majority of satisfied owners certainly wouldn't[quote]


Where is this vast majority? I, for one, feel ripped off by the Samsung. Some of these "satisfied" owners may not even be aware of the issues, but their satisfaction is likely to dissipate when LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or some other BD50 won't be recognized by their machine.
Larry Sutliff is offline  
post #2003 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 11:22 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Kosty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North East USA
Posts: 14,683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Talk Did you have anything to do with the Sun announcement? If so congrats.

I know you want to keep your ID confidential, but if your work in the field had anything to do with that then kudos are in order. If it makes your job easier in any way, I'm for that too.

.
"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." - Miguel de Unamuno


follow me on Twitter
Kosty is offline  
post #2004 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cjplay
Talk, first off, thanks for not leaving in the face of being nearly yelled at and criticized. You do add positively to this discussion.
No problem, I dish out enough that I expect to take some in return!

Quote:
Besides the higher-density substrate and 3rd layer of copy protection (bit scrambling as it gets written, correct?), what do you feel, if anything, makes the BDA spec more ambitious than the DVD Forum's HD spec?
Certainly the higher density (with the resulting ramifications in terms of disc manufacturability) is the big one. I also consider BD-J to be more ambitious than iHD, since it's a much more open-ended platform.

Quote:
Like will Jenna Jameson's company go BD or HD?
She told me Blu-ray all the way! ;)

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #2005 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tormond
When he answers back in an antagonistic way and calls our concerns "irrelevant" and that the horse HDDVD chose to back "Warmed-over old technology" it irritates me a bit.
I didn't intend to diminish concerns regarding whether the BD player will support BD50 as irrelevant, I'm stating that until BD50 media is available it's really a non-issue if the player can support them now, as long as it can support them when they're available. If a firmware upgrade to support BD50 enhances compatibility or reduces disc manufacturing costs that's a good thing, right?
Quote:
Based on his "insiders view" I was asking why the the BDA would choose certain technologies instead of the ones that they did. He has deemed it not necessary to answer my questions and that is his right but my questions remain.
Sorry, I took your post as a rhetorical question. BD supports legacy and new video codecs. It doesn't mandate which codec a studio uses any more than HD-DVD does. LPCM has been around for many years, but is a fine format if you're willing to endure the increased storage required (which BD50 makes a non-issue). What masters the studios use is purely a studio choice and has nothing to do with the format.

Quote:
Why exactly did BDA choose to have at a minimum of 2 sets of specifications out of the gate?
I've addressed this before, but it's a matter of balancing time-to-market with features. If there weren't a format war I suspect you might not have had profiles. Since there is a competing format, better to launch with a good set of features rather than let the other format get a one year head start.
Quote:
It would seem that their early adopters (who bought the 1K+ players) would be irritated to find that they have to possibly buy another player to get the features?
I doubt many early adopters aren't aware of the risks off buying new technology, and those who are probably bought on impulse and the cost of upgrading in a year isn't a concern. The HD-A1, while doing an admirable job of adding new features via firmware upgrades, is still slow to boot, clunky looking (to most), and runs hot. Undoubtedly future generations of players will improve in these areas, and probably add features like media card readers, the ability to play networked media in the home, etc. There's nothing unique to Blu-ray about the fact that the first BD players don't support all the features future players will.

- Talk

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #2006 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinch
With this in mind i do believe alot of possible customers will take a "wait and see" attitude now (fool me once...) since PQ is NOT up to par today and not likely tomorrow. Time will tell
Yes, but there is every reason to suspect every title encoded with advanced codecs will equal or exceed HD-DVD PQ, and those titles are expected imminently from many of the studios.

Quote:
If i could follow up with a question... have any notable BRD hardware companies decided to RETHINK THEIR TIMING/DECISION of releasing $999-1400 players SOON in wake of the PS3 given the poor timing and high cost, coupled with missing features (no HDMI v1.3?)
Player manufacturers generally can't discuss or coordinate timing of product releases (or pricing) due to anti-trust concerns. However, I really don't think the PS3 is big competition for the home theatre enthusiast crowd. Anyone willing to pay many thousands of dollars for equipment is unlikely to care about saving $400-600 on a BD player if there are qualitative advantages to the standalone players (i.e. more convenient to use, better specs, etc.)
Quote:
From a business standpoint, it's tough to understand why any HW maker would not just skip BD v1 and wait until fall 2007 to design a cheaper, stealth machine, "full spec" BD player that can acually compete on shelves with both the HD-A1 and $600 PS3.
Because it's harder to get to V2 unless you do V1. It's just a cost of doing business, at least for those manufacturers who invest heavily in R&D. The things you learn in producing the V1 player help you produce a better, less expensive V2 player. On the other hand, once the technology is well-understood you will see commodity players (i.e. Chinese manufacturers) enter the market, but we're still well off from that point.

- Talk

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #2007 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Sutliff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Even if you think so, the vast majority of satisfied owners certainly wouldn't
Where is this vast majority? I, for one, feel ripped off by the Samsung. Some of these "satisfied" owners may not even be aware of the issues, but their satisfaction is likely to dissipate when LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or some other BD50 won't be recognized by their machine.
Please read my quote carefully. "Vast majority of satisfied owners", not "vast majority of owners are satisfied". I never claimed the vast majority of owners are satisfied (though I'm certainly unwilling to accept the poll done here as representing the entire base of BD-P1000 purchasers), but what I said is the vast majority of satisfied BD-P1000 owners would rather have bought their players when they did and, if necessary, do a firmware upgrade to enable BD50 support upon availability of BD50 discs. I have never suggested the BD-P1000 will be unable to play BD50 discs.

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #2008 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Talkstr8t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Los Altos, CA, USA
Posts: 2,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty
Talk Did you have anything to do with the Sun announcement? If so congrats.

I know you want to keep your ID confidential, but if your work in the field had anything to do with that then kudos are in order. If it makes your job easier in any way, I'm for that too.
As a BD-J supporter I'm clearly pleased to see Sun play an increased role in the BDA. :D

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #2009 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 01:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PFC5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Please read my quote carefully. "Vast majority of satisfied owners", not "vast majority of owners are satisfied". I never claimed the vast majority of owners are satisfied (though I'm certainly unwilling to accept the poll done here as representing the entire base of BD-P1000 purchasers), but what I said is the vast majority of satisfied BD-P1000 owners would rather have bought their players when they did and, if necessary, do a firmware upgrade to enable BD50 support upon availability of BD50 discs. I have never suggested the BD-P1000 will be unable to play BD50 discs.
Boy talk about flim flamming with that one. So basically you are saying that all 10 of the satisfied Samsung BD player owners have no problem with getting a firmware update to be able to play BD50 discs. :D

Seriously there are probably many more than 10 satisfied customers that own the Samsung BD player, but clearly you must agree that the vast majority are not, or should I say were not, because a huge amount of them were returned.

No offense, but your use of tricky wording had shades of Bill Clinton asking for a definition of "IS". :D

Had to move my HT gear list to my profile so click below link to see it:

HT Gear list HERE
PFC5 is offline  
post #2010 of 4623 Old 08-31-2006, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dialog_gvf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 4,990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by briankmonkey
Sorry if asked alread. Read this in another thread (probably in here as well)

"45 Mb disc coming triple layer coming although may require new player"

Is there any definite word if the HD-DVD add-on for the xbox360 will support Triple Layer discs?
Related:

Quote:
Jim Armour, Toshiba: Any likelihood... well, if we're actually creating the format, I think there's a likelihood. There is a likelihood - a 45gb capacity could be very useful. Whether drives can read it, I don't know - because, basically the specification hasn't been set. It's like when the first Dual Layer DVD-Rs came out, really old drives couldn't read it. [...] It could well be the same situation. Until the standard has been specified and ratified, you can't really say whether it'll be able to read it.

I would go as far, in fact, to say probably not. You're having to focus through two primary layers. The amount of reflected energy that you're going to get back will be quite low. Now in my opinion, in order to read this kind of media, you're going to need something like - do you know your way around the term PRML?

DVDTimes: I actually don't, no - could you explain that?
Jim Armour, Toshiba: It's Partial Response Maximum Likelihood - PRML. It's in hard discs. It's like a digital filter where you take the signal, which is quite weak and has a lot of noise in it, and you clean up the noise. The signal you get out is still looking like noise, but you know that in certain points, the data is going to have a slightly stronger signal at these points. So, you put it through a digital filter, and you compare it to non-data. And then, you pick out the data from this noisy signal with it. It's a very interesting technology, but it's not actually built into current HD DVD readers.

The signal that you're going to get back off triple layer is going to be something in the region of only 15-20% of the current reflected information that you get off a single layer.
DVDTimes: Basically, not good enough to get anything out of, then?
Jim Armour, Toshiba: Not good enough to get information out of, WITHOUT this PRML circuitry, and the first drives don't have PRML circuitry built in. I don't think that even with a firmware upgrade, you'd be able to do it.
DVDTimes: Right, it's physical hardware then?
Jim Armour, Toshiba: Yeah, I think second or third generation hardware - fine, but not first-generation products.
Does the XBox 360 drive have the PRML circuitry that can handle TL?

Gary


- Don't trust sigs
dialog_gvf is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Software Media Discussion

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