Bluray BD-J delays causing HD DVD releases to be HELD BACK?! - Page 9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 279 Old 03-26-2007, 02:07 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 opathoris View Post

The idea that the PS3 will carry the day for Blu-Ray is specious at best.

And yet, primarily due to the PS3, Blu-ray sales are stomping HD DVD sales by virtually every measure. The evidence belies your claim.

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 279 Old 03-26-2007, 02:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Grubert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,892
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisko197 View Post

And your taking credit for WB releasing The Matrix trilogy on HD DVD is... amusing.

Agree. If somebody thinks he has such pull on the industry, he should lead a petition to persuade Warner to master the Animatrix in HD. That I would sign on.

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Grubert is offline  
post #243 of 279 Old 03-26-2007, 06:26 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

The pushback of mandatory BD-Video 1.1 support for newly-released models from June to October has nothing to do with BD-J; it's related to supporting the new hardware features (i.e. secondary video). Secondary video can be accessed from either BD-J or HDMV. Since the date change isn't a BD-J issue, there is no reason to suggest Sun is somehow responsible for the change.

How can you say that getting features like Secondary video (PiP) to work on new hardware is not related to BDJ???

That is a BD Video (BDJ) 1.1 feature and is intimately related to BDJ. Just because it is the hardware manufacturer's end-resonsibility to make function does not absolve Sun of responsibility.

There are multiple vendors, multiple hardware platforms and multiple BDJ specifications - and the whole thing should have been pulled together sooner.

If Sun has NO responsibility for any of this then WHO DOES?
rdjam is offline  
post #244 of 279 Old 03-26-2007, 06:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

And yet, primarily due to the PS3, Blu-ray sales are stomping HD DVD sales by virtually every measure. The evidence belies your claim.

And with 15 times the players in the market, they only have around 2 times the movie sales - seems to indicate a rather paltry attach rate...
rdjam is offline  
post #245 of 279 Old 03-26-2007, 06:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisko197 View Post

Certainly everything up to that point suggested WB was ready to release The Matrix. By itself.

Everything up to that point indicated the exact opposite - which is why everyone took action.

Quote:


Isn't it just as likely that WB waited for the other two Matrix movies along with the Animatrix to be encoded and the extras to be set up for the HD DVD release of the trilogy rather than just give us the first movie?

N.O. Animatrix in SD would HARDLY have held up the set. And that fact that it was already announced for Canada and France showed it was already ready.

Quote:


And your taking credit for WB releasing The Matrix trilogy on HD DVD is... amusing. It is pleasing to see it coming, but to make anything more of one release than what I said above is just proving yourself to be delusional and self-centered. Are you these things?

I've not taken the credit - the credit is widely deserved for ALL of those folks who got involved and sent in their letters to Warner. With your blind disdain and contempt, you manage to insult hundreds of people in just two sentences here. Stop acting so jealous

Quote:


By the way, BD-J may or may not be ready, but isn't it in Chicken Little?

Pretty much everything coming out COULD have BDJ functions, but there are MANY different types of BDJ code. What folks have been talking about are the advanced IME features like PiP, etc - NOT a useless 2D "chicken invaders" 80's arcade knockoff.
rdjam is offline  
post #246 of 279 Old 03-27-2007, 08:37 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 rdjam View Post

How can you say that getting features like Secondary video (PiP) to work on new hardware is not related to BDJ???

Because secondary video is in no way a BD-J feature. It's a hardware feature. If it's there you can access it from HDMV or from BD-J.
Quote:


That is a BD Video (BDJ) 1.1 feature and is intimately related to BDJ.

We've been through this endlessly before. There is one BD-J specification. There are two hardware profiles - BD-Video 1.1 and BD-Live, and a BD-Video 1.0 "grace period" profile. BD-J is the same in all of them. The only difference is whether hardware support is provided to support content using the HDMV or BD-J API's accessing that hardware.
Quote:


If Sun has NO responsibility for any of this then WHO DOES?

These decisions are made by the BDA BOD, which consists primarily of hardware vendors (Sony, Panasonic, etc.), studios (Disney, Fox, Warner, etc.) and IT vendors (HP, Dell, Apple, Sun). Decisions are made collaboratively with input from other technology providers (i.e. Broadcom, Sigma Designs). No company is singularly responsible for these decisions.
Quote:


Pretty much everything coming out COULD have BDJ functions, but there are MANY different types of BDJ code. What folks have been talking about are the advanced IME features like PiP, etc

PiP can be done on any Blu-ray player today (see The Descent). PiP implemented via secondary video is the sole feature of IME which can't be done on pre-1.1 Blu-ray players. You continue to blow this issue out of proportion.

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #247 of 279 Old 03-27-2007, 08:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Topweasel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

PiP can be done on any Blu-ray player today (see The Descent). PiP implemented via secondary video is the sole feature of IME which can't be done on pre-1.1 Blu-ray players. You continue to blow this issue out of proportion.

Talk there is a difference between two cuts of a movie one with the PiP embedded into one of those, and true PiP. Specailly if the reports are true that cut with the embedded picture is of lower quality whether because less effort or lack of space on that encode.
Topweasel is offline  
post #248 of 279 Old 03-28-2007, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
oliverjg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
this scenario of only dealing with bd-j 1.1 does not make me feel good at all about buying a bd player if all it fixes is pip. i thought that only gen1 players would be obsolete. but from what talk is saying this current delay is only going to fix pip. is this going to happen all over again for bd-live compliance?
oliverjg is offline  
post #249 of 279 Old 03-28-2007, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

Because secondary video is in no way a BD-J feature. It's a hardware feature. If it's there you can access it from HDMV or from BD-J.

That's a diversionary argument. Whether it can be accessed through other types of programming does not discount the importance to the studios of doing so through BDJ 1.1 or 2.0. And it appears that being able to predict how each player will respond to the code being developed is the main issue.

Quote:


We've been through this endlessly before. There is one BD-J specification. There are two hardware profiles - BD-Video 1.1 and BD-Live, and a BD-Video 1.0 "grace period" profile. BD-J is the same in all of them.

There are THREE profiles. BD Video 1.0 (which is what all players are right now), BD Video 1.1 (which all players sold on November 1 2007 or after must meet) and BD Live 2.0 (which is an optional profile).

Quote:


The only difference is whether hardware support is provided to support content using the HDMV or BD-J API's accessing that hardware.
These decisions are made by the BDA BOD, which consists primarily of hardware vendors (Sony, Panasonic, etc.), studios (Disney, Fox, Warner, etc.) and IT vendors (HP, Dell, Apple, Sun). Decisions are made collaboratively with input from other technology providers (i.e. Broadcom, Sigma Designs). No company is singularly responsible for these decisions.

It's easy to say that Sun has no role in this at all - but is it quite that simple? If the BDA decides that they will have "x" profile by, say, June - do they do so arbitrarily without input from the primary software vendor as to whether this is possible?

1) Are you saying that the BDJ API's were all ready and that they have given no problems at all for the hardware vendors making these BD players?
2) Are you saying that the BDJ APIs have all responded to code exactly as predicted on these platforms, and that the studios have seen no variation at all from what they expected their code to do (on spec) versus what the code is actually doing on the players they have beta'd?
3) Are you saying that they have seen no variation in how the differing BD players have reacted to the same code?
4) Were the studios not advised to NOT use some BDJ functions until certain dates when newer player profiles were closer to being on the market?

Quote:


PiP can be done on any Blu-ray player today (see The Descent).

This has been dissected to death already. I'm surprised that you are trying it again.

Quote:


PiP implemented via secondary video is the sole feature of IME which can't be done on pre-1.1 Blu-ray players.

I sincerely doubt that this is the ONLY difference between 1.0 and 1.1 - which is clearly what you seek to imply here. I will leave it to someone more experienced in the two profiles to make a more detailed contradiction of this statement.

Quote:


You continue to blow this issue out of proportion.

Out of proportion? The advanced interactive features of the 1.1 and 2.0 profiles are actively promoted by BD, often right next to the 1.0 players, and most buyers are completely unaware of the difference and that the 1.0 players on sale may never be able to give them these features.
rdjam is offline  
post #250 of 279 Old 03-28-2007, 11:13 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
RDJam... while expect there to be growing pains for both BD-J and HDi for which fixes will be required (i.e.- does the "flashlight" work on The Descent), I believe it's pretty clear that the issue of there being a secondary hardware decoder is the real one.

Without it, then does it really matter if: 1) The BD-J API's to access it aren't even present in a machine, 2) they are there in their entirety, or 3) they are there but buggy?

It's a code path that's never going to be called. Or more accurately, it probably WILL be called, only to immediately return with a "HARDWARE_NOT_PRESENT" status so that the user can get some sort of pleasant error message.

Of course it's possible that once decks start shipping with secondary decoders, they are going to have the BD-J API's to take advantage of the. It's likely that additional bugs will then be uncovered. But that's a different issue that will (hopefully) be fixed in the first round of firmware updates for those players.

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #251 of 279 Old 03-28-2007, 02:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Hi Steve - I wish I could believe that it is that simple. If it were, then I'm sure the studios wouldn't be so caught up in this right now. I think the answers to some of my questions to Bill above would clarify the true position...
rdjam is offline  
post #252 of 279 Old 04-01-2007, 08:55 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 Topweasel View Post

Talk there is a difference between two cuts of a movie one with the PiP embedded into one of those, and true PiP.

The method of implementing PiP can be absolutely transparent to the user, if implemented properly and assuming enough disc capacity (probably not an issue for BD50 on shorter movies).
Quote:


Specailly if the reports are true that cut with the embedded picture is of lower quality whether because less effort or lack of space on that encode.

I've not seen these reports, but it's certainly possible. Nonetheless, it doesn't have to be the case - any movie released on BD25 could be released with full PiP support on a BD50 with no loss in quality.

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #253 of 279 Old 04-01-2007, 08:55 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 oliverjg View Post

from what talk is saying this current delay is only going to fix pip. is this going to happen all over again for bd-live compliance?

There are no plans for BD-Live to be mandatory - manufacturers are free to offer non-networked players should they so choose. If you want BD-Live you should buy a player which claims BD-Live compliance. Or buy a PS3 and hope a firmware update makes it BD-Live compliant.

- Talk

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #254 of 279 Old 04-01-2007, 08:56 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 rdjam View Post

It's easy to say that Sun has no role in this at all - but is it quite that simple? If the BDA decides that they will have "x" profile by, say, June - do they do so arbitrarily without input from the primary software vendor as to whether this is possible?

BD-Video 1.1 implementation is primarily dependent on the hardware. The BD-J API for PiP mostly just calls an underlying OS API - there's really very little Java code involved. Further, Sun doesn't build everyone's BD-J implementation. Those manufacturers who choose to can license the Java virtual machine from Sun, or from other providers. They then generally build their own BD-J implementation on top of the Java stack or they pay someone else to do it.
Quote:


1) Are you saying that the BDJ API's were all ready and that they have given no problems at all for the hardware vendors making these BD players?

The API's are present in the spec. When the spec was done the API's were done. The implementation of the API is done by whomever builds the BD-J stack, but can't be done until you have hardware to port to.
Quote:


2) Are you saying that the BDJ APIs have all responded to code exactly as predicted on these platforms, and that the studios have seen no variation at all from what they expected their code to do (on spec) versus what the code is actually doing on the players they have beta'd?
3) Are you saying that they have seen no variation in how the differing BD players have reacted to the same code?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but if you're asking if every BD-J implementation acts exactly the same, the answer would be no There are clearly performance level differences and bugs, many of which have been remedied via firmware updates, but there are undoubtedly others which haven't yet been found or fixed. Do you think it's any different with HDi? There are only two HDi implementations (Toshiba's and Microsoft's), so there's much less diversity, but there have certainly been bugs and performance issues there as well. That's the nature of increasingly complex platforms.
Quote:


4) Were the studios not advised to NOT use some BDJ functions until certain dates when newer player profiles were closer to being on the market?

I'm not aware of any specific advisement, but it would certainly be prudent not to use features which haven't yet been well-tested, just as they aren't releasing content using secondary video even though they likely have prototype implementations which support it. Once again, this is not unique to Blu-ray - no one has released HD DVD content using network support, even though in theory the players all fully support it.
Quote:


I sincerely doubt that this is the ONLY difference between 1.0 and 1.1 - which is clearly what you seek to imply here.

I'm not trying to imply secondary video is the only difference; the title of this thread refers to HD DVD releases being held back (because IME can't be supported). My statement refers explicitly to the fact that lack of secondary video is the only impediment to full IME implementations today (and even then it could be supported through the use of dual-encoding).

- Talk

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #255 of 279 Old 04-03-2007, 07:48 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 Talkstr8t View Post

If you want BD-Live you should buy a player which claims BD-Live compliance.
- Talk


-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #256 of 279 Old 04-03-2007, 02:52 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
alfbinet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Old Brooklyn (Cleveland), Ohio
Posts: 3,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am sorry but this BD implementation sounds like a mess, not consumer friendly at all.

Chad Billheimer rocks as a ISF Calibrator for Ohio.
Roller Coaster season is upon us. Proud member of American Coaster Enthusiasts (ACE) Woodies Rule!
alfbinet is online now  
post #257 of 279 Old 04-03-2007, 04:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Whoops... BDJ in the news again...

"Blu-ray Disc Specification Change Threatens Current Players"

http://www.dailytech.com/Bluray+Disc...rticle6702.htm

"Blu-ray Disc Java is coming this fall, and it may be incompatible with some of today's machines"

Blu-ray player requirements and BD-Java specifications have been gradually changed over and over again, which has caused a good amount of grief for player manufacturers, said optical storage analyst Wesley Novack.
rdjam is offline  
post #258 of 279 Old 04-03-2007, 04:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

There are no plans for BD-Live to be mandatory - manufacturers are free to offer non-networked players should they so choose. If you want BD-Live you should buy a player which claims BD-Live compliance. Or buy a PS3 and hope a firmware update makes it BD-Live compliant.

- Talk

And therein lies the problem.

I said from early last year that the multiple player profiles and the lack of decent minimum specifications/requiirements was going to bite Bluray in the *ss.

The article I have quoted above is not the first where content providers are complaining about having to develop their releases to meet the minimum specifications of BD Video 1.0 (which suck, IMO)

This is only going to get worse, and in all likelihood, the majority of BD releases will NEVER use 1.1 or 2.0 features. Only a small percentage will likely do so.
rdjam is offline  
post #259 of 279 Old 04-03-2007, 04:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

Those manufacturers who choose to can license the Java virtual machine from Sun, or from other providers. They then generally build their own BD-J implementation on top of the Java stack or they pay someone else to do it.

Hasn't Sun been hired by any of these vendors to help write their BDJ implementations?

Quote:


I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but if you're asking if every BD-J implementation acts exactly the same, the answer would be no ... there are undoubtedly others which haven't yet been found or fixed.

Thank you.

Quote:


Do you think it's any different with HDi? There are only two HDi implementations (Toshiba's and Microsoft's)

But the key is that there is only ONE player spec for HD DVD, so that hugely reduces the complications, as is evident.

Quote:


Once again, this is not unique to Blu-ray - no one has released HD DVD content using network support, even though in theory the players all fully support it.

Funny you should mention this, since the 2.1 update which landed today adds support for some nifty network features for soon-to-come releases. They don't seem to be having nearly as much trouble with that support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

I sincerely doubt that this is the ONLY difference between 1.0 and 1.1 - which is clearly what you seek to imply here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by talkstr8t View Post

I'm not trying to imply secondary video is the only difference; the title of this thread refers to HD DVD releases being held back (because IME can't be supported).

Thank you for the honesty. Is there ANY documentation ANY where which can tell us what the rest of that functionality is - or is this to continue to remain a secret?
rdjam is offline  
post #260 of 279 Old 04-08-2007, 01:56 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 rdjam View Post

In all likelihood, the majority of BD releases will NEVER use 1.1 or 2.0 features. Only a small percentage will likely do so.

I'm sorry, you're simply wrong. I talk with all the major studios, generally several times per week. I can assure you not a single major studio intends to limit their content to the features supported by BD-Video 1.0. That said, note that probably only 10-15% of HD DVD titles use features not present in BD-Video 1.0 (i.e. secondary video), in spite of the fact that all HD DVD players can support those features. There will always be titles, perhaps a majority of titles, for which the ROI simply doesn't support authoring extensive bonus content.
Quote:


Hasn't Sun been hired by any of these vendors to help write their BDJ implementations?

Why does that matter? Michelin may provide extraordinary technology in the tires they supply Honda, but that doesn't help Honda implement the rest of the transmission.
Quote:


Funny you should mention this, since the 2.1 update which landed today adds support for some nifty network features for soon-to-come releases. They don't seem to be having nearly as much trouble with that support.

I'll accept this claim once network support is commonly supported on HD DVD content.
Quote:


Thank you for the honesty. Is there ANY documentation ANY where which can tell us what the rest of that functionality is - or is this to continue to remain a secret?

It's available to anyone who licenses the format. See http://www.blu-raydisc.info for all the details.

- Talk

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #261 of 279 Old 04-08-2007, 05:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ILJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

There are no plans for BD-Live to be mandatory - manufacturers are free to offer non-networked players should they so choose. If you want BD-Live you should buy a player which claims BD-Live compliance. Or buy a PS3 and hope a firmware update makes it BD-Live compliant.

- Talk


Wow.

Manufacturers can do whatever they want, and the onus is on the consumer to know enough about it to look specifically for it...OR..."hope" that one currently available piece of hardware (a game console, no less) might be able to do it.


*************************************************

Still looking for a movie theatre that shows movies the way they're SUPPOSED to be viewed...



...with a bitrate meter and screencaps.
ILJG is offline  
post #262 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 11:03 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

I'm sorry, you're simply wrong. I talk with all the major studios, generally several times per week. I can assure you not a single major studio intends to limit their content to the features supported by BD-Video 1.0.

And that is exactly my point. I'm sure I'll agree that NONE of the BD studios "intend" to "limit" their releases to BD 1.0 features, yet 99% of the releases so far DO "coincidentally" fall within BD 1.0 limits. It's the lowest common denominator - in fact I am having a hard time thinking of even ONE BD release that uses 1.1 or 2.0 features (aside from one game release).

Yet many, many HD DVD releases are using advanced IME features in HDi that would require 1.1 or greater on BD in order to achieve. The lowest common denominator syndrome WILL be an issue for BD studios - it cannot be avoided.

Furthermore, any buyers of current BD standalone players will have to face up to the fact that they will NOT ever be able to use the 1.1 or 2.0 features which are likely to appear on some titles in the next 7 months.

Quote:


That said, note that probably only 10-15% of HD DVD titles use features not present in BD-Video 1.0 (i.e. secondary video), in spite of the fact that all HD DVD players can support those features.

I agree, but that is still more than 0% on BD, correct And let's not forget that if you look only at HD DVD releases in the last 4 months, the percentage is even higher, which means more recent titles ARE using these features as standard.

Quote:


There will always be titles, perhaps a majority of titles, for which the ROI simply doesn't support authoring extensive bonus content.

Exactly! The ROI (return on investment) will suck for BD studios to author 1.1 and 2.0 features when only a small percentage of player owners can use these features. Therefore, BD studios will MORE frequently decide not to invest to money in it.

Quote:


Why does that matter?

Because it may seem shallow to make a statement which says that Sun has no responsibility and that the manufacturers are responsible - when it turns out that Sun is in fact involved in doing this work for the manufacturers...

Quote:


Michelin may provide extraordinary technology in the tires they supply Honda, but that doesn't help Honda implement the rest of the transmission.

ehh?

Quote:


I'll accept this claim once network support is commonly supported on HD DVD content.

I think most folks recognize that 1.1 and 2.0 features entails rather a lot more than just network support. But I do take your point that 100% of HD DVD players have network ports (thanks to a single sensible "spec").

Quote:


It's available to anyone who licenses the format. See http://www.blu-raydisc.info for all the details.

- Talk

Hmm - thanks, err, for that. I have searched the site but, as you say, it seems that the only way to get the specs is to apply to be a licensee? Is there any way for regular people to find out?

However, could you answer this? I see a press release dated the 10th of April which seems to mention that the 1.11 player spec has now been updated to 1.2 for RE discs? I thought that the specs had been fixed but they seem to continue to change on the fly?
rdjam is offline  
post #263 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 05:16 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 rdjam View Post

99% of the releases so far DO "coincidentally" fall within BD 1.0 limits. It's the lowest common denominator - in fact I am having a hard time thinking of even ONE BD release that uses 1.1 or 2.0 features (aside from one game release).

You're right, there are none. This isn't a coincidence - without players to test against, it's unlikely a studio's going to risk releasing a title making use of the new hardware features.
Quote:


Yet many, many HD DVD releases are using advanced IME features in HDi that would require 1.1 or greater on BD in order to achieve.

Can you show me one feature other than turning PiP on-and-off at will which has been shown on HD DVD which can't be done on today's Blu-ray Disc players? Nope, there are none. A wider range of BD-J features have been shown than have HDi.
Quote:


Furthermore, any buyers of current BD standalone players will have to face up to the fact that they will NOT ever be able to use the 1.1 or 2.0 features which are likely to appear on some titles in the next 7 months.

Just as many HD DVD owners (anyone running the Xbox 360 add-on) have to face up to the fact that they can't ever hear lossless sound, or that Toshiba owners (other than possibly the HD-XA2) can't ever get 1080p24 output. There's lots of software I can't run on my three-year-old home PC because it only has 64MB of dedicated graphics RAM. If/when the software I can't run becomes more important to me than the cost of an upgrade I'll upgrade. Today's CE devices are similar - the pace of change has increased dramatically, and as a result few of us will own equipment which hasn't been superseded by more capable equipment within a few months of purchase. I think most consumers "get" that.
Quote:


Exactly! The ROI (return on investment) will suck for BD studios to author 1.1 and 2.0 features when only a small percentage of player owners can use these features. Therefore, BD studios will MORE frequently decide not to invest to money in it.

The number of pre-11/07 players sold will be dwarfed by the number of post-11/07 players sold, probably by spring, 2008. If you assume the PS3 will be BD-Live capable then you've already got a 90+% installed based of what will be BD-Live capable players. Even ignoring the hard facts I just mentioned, you're simply wrong with regards to studio intent. How often do you speak with studio decision-makers? Why are they currently developing titles which make use of network connectivity if they have no plan to support it?
Quote:


I think most folks recognize that 1.1 and 2.0 features entails rather a lot more than just network support.

A lot less than is being made of it here. "1.1" consists primarily of two features: secondary audio/video and 256MB minimum local storage capability. 2.0 ups the 256MB to 1GB and adds mandatory network support.
Quote:


But I do take your point that 100% of HD DVD players have network ports (thanks to a single sensible "spec").

HD DVD has a single spec with optional components. Blu-ray has a single spec with optional components. We may argue over the merits of which components are mandatory and which are optional in each spec, but there is no fundamental difference in how the two specs are structured.
Quote:


I see a press release dated the 10th of April which seems to mention that the 1.11 player spec has now been updated to 1.2 for RE discs? I thought that the specs had been fixed but they seem to continue to change on the fly?

If you think all the HD DVD specifications are frozen you're sadly mistaken. Every active specification sees updates, whether to fix bugs, clarify wording, or add new features. Most of them are transparent to the end-user, but some require firmware updates. How else do you think faster writing speeds (i.e. 2x -> 4x -> 8x) are supported? New specs.

Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Talkstr8t is offline  
post #264 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 05:59 PM
Senior Member
 
JBCricket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Originally Posted by rdjam

Quote:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Michelin may provide extraordinary technology in the tires they supply Honda, but that doesn't help Honda implement the rest of the transmission.

ehh?

So in order to use the tires (BDJ implementations) we need the transmission (additional hardware in the Blu-Ray players). Guess we will be burning rubber in November.
JBCricket is offline  
post #265 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 07:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nataraj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 8,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Exactly! The ROI (return on investment) will suck for BD studios to author 1.1 and 2.0 features when only a small percentage of player owners can use these features. Therefore, BD studios will MORE frequently decide not to invest to money in it.

Makes sense. Afterall the only title Warner gave PCM in BD was a well selling title.
nataraj is offline  
post #266 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 08:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sisko197's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

And that is exactly my point. I'm sure I'll agree that NONE of the BD studios "intend" to "limit" their releases to BD 1.0 features, yet 99% of the releases so far DO "coincidentally" fall within BD 1.0 limits. It's the lowest common denominator - in fact I am having a hard time thinking of even ONE BD release that uses 1.1 or 2.0 features (aside from one game release).

I don't think you're actually reading what Talk is saying. Or perhaps you're just so stubbornly "jealous" of BD's tons of lossless audio that you can't let up in this thread. (Btw, I caught your jealous comment, but you should know I'm buying The Matrix Trilogy for my XA2. ) That I prefer my PS3 to my up-and-down XA2, well that's my opinion.

Regardless, here, I'll try to point out the obvious for you again. Talk is talking about studios' intent in the months ahead. I just read a report of Samsung readying the infrastructure for their BD Live service to connect to what must be a BD Live player they intend to release this year.

Now you need to stop looking at what's releasing right now when there are only 1.0 BD spec movies and think about what will come in the next few months as studios get their hands on prototype players with BD-J 1.1 and Live spec. I think Talk is right. I think this format is going to last a lot longer than one year. And I think as prices go down--which they inevitably will--the sales will skyrocket in comparison. I also happen to think the PS3 is inevitably going to support BD 1.1 spec, if not Live. In which case, I'd say 90% (or more) of players out there are going to be 1.1 spec as soon as Sony decides its important.

The day the PS3 becomes 1.1 compatible is the day "most" people will have it and the studios will have more than enough reason to go with BD-J. And any features that don't work simply won't show up in the menu. As evidenced by the flashlight in The Descent. I also happen to think that more players will sale after the October 2007 date than will sell before it.

I just don't think this is going to be the critical mass year. In which case, we're talking about early adopters who are missing out on PiP and a few online interactive features I'm not convinced will even compel the consumer who seems rarely interested in addition features to start with.

Quote:


Yet many, many HD DVD releases are using advanced IME features in HDi that would require 1.1 or greater on BD in order to achieve. The lowest common denominator syndrome WILL be an issue for BD studios - it cannot be avoided.

I disagree. I think that a critical mass will easily happen after October 2007 in BD players. Especially if the PS3 is firmware updated to have 1.1, which I expect to happen as part of Sony's 1-2 punch this year. At that point, I see no reason for the studios to support the majority of players sold with 1.1.

Assuming Sony sees the PS3 as a vehicle to ensure BD 1.1 success (as they have so far with BD and the PS3), do you not agree that the majority of BD players after Oct 2007 will be 1.1? And do you not see the 1.0 players being bought only by those that are more or less early adopters (even a year later)? And is it not part of the cost of being an early adopter that you will wind up with hardware that needs to be replaced to get every feature?

Certainly, everyone who bought an XA1--if they were like you--would have cried out in pain at the XA2, which had 1080p and a faster drive 6 months later. Was the XA1 capable of 1080p? How confusing. BD has had 1080p from the beginning. BD has had LPCM from the beginning.

HD DVD has TrueHD 2.0 required. The spec requires nothing more for lossless. That's why about the same 15% support it as support IME/U-control.

Quote:


Furthermore, any buyers of current BD standalone players will have to face up to the fact that they will NOT ever be able to use the 1.1 or 2.0 features which are likely to appear on some titles in the next 7 months.

Yes. Early adopters. Read above. Early adopters often find players releasing later that have more features. Superior features. Tempting features. But not features that everyone needs. Just some. The few that care so much about extra features like PiP (as adamantly as you do) will already know better. Everyone else won't give a fig.

Like the poll of BD owners who were asked if they cared about interactive features. Most... didn't. And that was on avsforum. Among the mass consumer, I bet the number's lower, given the mass consumer's apathy for "extras" in general.

Quote:


I agree, but that is still more than 0% on BD, correct And let's not forget that if you look only at HD DVD releases in the last 4 months, the percentage is even higher, which means more recent titles ARE using these features as standard.

Are you calling IME standard? I hope you're joking. Now lossless audio is nearly standard on BD. That's what I'd call "almost standard." IME/U-control/PiP... sparingly used.

Quote:


Exactly! The ROI (return on investment) will suck for BD studios to author 1.1 and 2.0 features when only a small percentage of player owners can use these features. Therefore, BD studios will MORE frequently decide not to invest to money in it.

You're thinking of today. Everyone else is thinking of next year. Studios know--as most people with common sense know--that most players sold during holiday season this year and next year will be BD 1.1 or greater. Why do you think Training Day and Phantom of the Opera on HD DVD had TrueHD 5.1 tracks before Toshiba enabled 5.1 on the A1/XA1? Even despite the fact that the spec only requires 2.0 support. Because they were thinking of the future.

It will be no different for the studios in supporting BD-J 1.1. Because it's coming. And more players next year will have it than don't. And more players will sell next year than this year.

Quote:


Because it may seem shallow to make a statement which says that Sun has no responsibility and that the manufacturers are responsible - when it turns out that Sun is in fact involved in doing this work for the manufacturers...

ehh?

Sun designed the underlying language. It can help program the necessary software underlying. But BD-J requires the hardware to work. The hardware's not there. It doesn't work without the hardware. All the Sun work in the world wouldn't make the secondary video hardware be available for what the BDA wants. Sun is not magically delicious, they cannot make the hardware appear that isn't there yet.

Quote:


I think most folks recognize that 1.1 and 2.0 features entails rather a lot more than just network support. But I do take your point that 100% of HD DVD players have network ports (thanks to a single sensible "spec").

A sensible spec? Please. There are five hardware devices by different companies being shoehorned together with different software designs and hardware configurations being made to run the same spec. Meanwhile, HD DVD has one manufacturer behind all the devices (Toshiba). Toshiba even developed the hardware of the Xbox 360 add-on. Microsoft developed the HDi underlying for all devices out so far. Do you really think that if Panasonic and Pioneer released an HDi-capable HD DVD player that it would be as compatible as in the current scenario where one hardware manufacturer and one software manufacturer makes everything for every player?

It's a lot easier to keep everything compatible (and still you have problems with Children of Men, Hollywoodland, The Good Sheppard, etc.) with just one manufacturer of players than it is when you have several. Especially companies that traditionally compete and work together only to create a spec.

It's kind of sad you don't see why this is. The true test would be IF other companies saw a reason to make HD DVD players, but they don't or haven't yet. Of course, there are the upcoming Chinese cheapos that we still don't have any specs or pictures of. Or the Onyko intent to make a player. Or Meridian's intent.

None of which have done anything but express intent. Personally, I'd not trust a player that is made by a company other than toshiba given all the trouble the Big T has had making compatibility issues go away even with its own hardware and spec design.

BDA is the PC market and HD DVD is the Apple state from years ago. Toshiba controls every player made at the moment. That won't last if HD DVD wins the war. In which case, it will wind up in the same place as BD is now. Trying to get players compatible with one another and working the same for discs manufactured.

Even minor differences have already been detected in the way the add-on interacts with certain discs when compared to the standalone Toshiba players. Imagine what will happen when another manufacturer releases a serious competitor to the A2/XA2.

Heh. I wonder where your arguments about compatibility will be then. And "single spec." Heh. You know, the amusing thing is that the if Sony were the entire BDA (as many believe), then BD'd be all set with BD-J and the spec wouldn't be causing some headaches getting cross-compatible. Because it'd just be Sony and they could do whatever the hell they want.

Like Toshiba is doing right now.
Sisko197 is offline  
post #267 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 09:00 PM
Member
 
filmfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Geez.you folks take this hobby way too seriously.
filmfreak is offline  
post #268 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 11:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Pheew!

Sisko and talkstr8t - the discussion may be becoming a bit circular, since many of the points are in fact addressed by by above posts in this thread, and my last post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post10281813

However, the end point is this - you say that BD standalone player critical mass will not be acheived until after October 2007, then fine. You say that only early adopters will be scr*wed, then fine.

My point is that it is NOT a good idea for anyone to buy a BD standalone player that is not 1.1 or 2.0 compliant. No one can really seriously argue that point. It's already confirmed that none of the 1st gen standalone BD players have the hardware needed to handle 1.1 or 2.0 and so cannot be upgraded. And not everyone wants a PS3 sitting in their AV cabinet.

There's a lot of rhetoric going on arguing that (a) it's not true, there are no problems, (b) OK, it's true there are issues but HD DVD has issues too, so these player profile issues are fine, (c) sure there are issues, but any self-respecting early adopter should love these issues and the obsolescence, (d) not an issue, since the studios aren't using the features today anyway, (e) the studios aren't looking at todays issues, but tomorrow's, therefore the customers shouldn't trifle themselves with these issues either as it's not their concern, or, (f) these issues aren't issues at all because everyone knows that consumers don't care about these features until we tell 'em they should...

BTW, Sisko - I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I'm "jealous" of BD One who has read my posts over the last year, in which I clearly predicted most of the problems with BD, would never mistake my critiscism of the various shortfalls of the format as "jealousy"...
rdjam is offline  
post #269 of 279 Old 04-12-2007, 11:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
lockheede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have to laugh...I read the Daily Tech article re: "Blu-ray Disc Specs" and noticed something funny towards the bottom of the article...

"Only a couple Blu-ray movies feature picture-in-picture commentaries, those titles being Descent and Crank, though they do so without BD Java. Cleverly, and perhaps inelegantly, two complete versions of the movie are stored on a 50GB Blu-ray disc. One version contains the normal version of the film, while the second one features the picture-in-picture commentary hard-encoded on top of the film."


This is what they wasted a 50GB disc with?!
lockheede is offline  
post #270 of 279 Old 04-13-2007, 08:39 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 Talkstr8t View Post

Just as HD DVD owners have to face up to the fact that they can't ever hear lossless sound, or that Toshiba owners (other than possibly the HD-XA2) can't ever get 1080p24 output.

To clarify Talk, unless I'm missing some context (such as your limiting this comment to the 360, which doesn't appear to be the case), are you stating that HD DVD doesn't support lossless? Or did you mean "uncompressed"? (Although I believe that is supported as well on HD DVD, Amir just referred to it in the insider's thread).

Also, the A20 does 24P, as also can be had from some software players.

Incidentally, I agree with much of your post that articulates the fact that CE devices are likely to feel similar to the PC world where evolving standards, software updates, etc.. are going to be the norm. If anything, the fact that people are less accustomed to this for standalone CE hardware, makes it MORE necessary to responsibly disclose capability.

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
Closed Thread HD DVD Software

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