New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beyond HD - Page 6  

post #151 of 161
9/10/08 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

Furthermore I don't think many here have an idea of the costs involved in producing yet another content stream format. Meaning if it's not the BluRay image or the DCI image file, then a whole new encoding and authoring process must take place. I gotta tell you folks, even a $1000 per title isn't going to work for the highly niche market this service will service.

Not necessarily. The way I've understood this is they're basically just going to provide an audio/video file on some sort of storage medium. It's "relatively" trivial (especially if "high enough" bitrate limits are used) to convert it to the right codecs and containers. And also from what I understand, there would be no menus, or extras, which is surely where all the effort goes when creating a "typical" disc-based movie release.

But overall I agree with most here that the whole thing has a definite air of "too good to be true" to it. I mean who wouldn't want DCI quality at the same time as the theatrical release in the comfort of their home (probably better than-cinema).

Well, nobody, unless it's too expensive, doesn't actually happen.

AVS Top Picks

post #152 of 161
9/10/08 at 1:27pm
Nothing is 'trivial' when it comes to this type of content. Creative people from the content owners have to review the work, this cost money. I'm with Glimmie, too much cost, too much politics, not a big enough niche.
post #153 of 161
9/10/08 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Mike Ferrara View Post

The selection of MG HD Music is frankly pathetic.
Why to assume that the selection of HD Movies will be any better?

Because they said 4,500 titles that is nothing to sneeze at. Even though I am sneezing right now, something I caught from the Bland sponsored lap Dance.
post #154 of 161
9/10/08 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinetopia View Post

Nothing is 'trivial' when it comes to this type of content. Creative people from the content owners have to review the work, this cost money.

But what I'm getting at is prepping content with this sort of delivery system/features is orders of magnitude less involved than say a Blu-ray or DVD release. No BD-J menus/features to verify/debug. No secondary audio streams to put together and get synced, no PIP streams. No extras to create assemble.

And especially if (as I think Alan suggested) these will basically be "processing free", no DNR, no EE, just from DCI master->different codecs. Of course it's not free, but combine all that, and the fact that the bandwidth ceilings are higher and there's no capacity limit, it can be a nearly automated process.

We're looking at a process much more like that to get a movie onto Xbox Live Marketplace or iTunes than Blu-ray or DVD.

Basically I'd be very surprised if the cost of the actual work to prepare the file is a significant barrier to this whole thing happening.

Quote:


I'm with Glimmie, too much cost, too much politics, not a big enough niche.

But on balance I agree, I can see the licensing costs, and especially the politics being what would kill this dream.
post #155 of 161
9/10/08 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

Well I work in the "industry" on the enginering side. My neighbor is a staff attorney for Universal. You have no clue as to the legal and licensing issues involved. The theater industry group, NATO, is not going to approve of this. Getting a personal copy on your doorstep of the next great blockbuster the day of theatrical release isn't going to happen. It's got nothing to do with copy protection either although be assured that would have to be foolproof as well. It's the licensing!

Furthermore I don't think many here have an idea of the costs involved in producing yet another content stream format. Meaning if it's not the BluRay image or the DCI image file, then a whole new encoding and authoring process must take place. I gotta tell you folks, even a $1000 per title isn't going to work for the highly niche market this service will service.

And back to copy protection issues, while the DCI spec is very robust, I don't think the MPAA is going to want DCI file sets out in the general public. They know no encryption scheme is foolproof and on way of keeping hackers at bay is not to let them get the encrypted content to play with in the first place. Just because DCI material is highly encrypted doesn't mean it lays around unsecured.

i didn't claim to have a clue. Nor do I claim to be an expert on this. I am only rehashing what has already been posted on this forum, both in this thread, and others.

I am not sure where you got that I started these discussions, or am making this stuff up, as you seem to be implying. Perhaps you actual intent is less derogatory than your wording makes it appear. Intent often gets lost in text.

Again, I am just summarizing.
post #156 of 161
9/10/08 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by conradjohnsonfan View Post

i didn't claim to have a clue. Nor do I claim to be an expert on this. I am only rehashing what has already been posted on this forum, both in this thread, and others.

I am not sure where you got that I started these discussions, or am making this stuff up, as you seem to be implying. Perhaps you actual intent is less derogatory than your wording makes it appear. Intent often gets lost in text.

Again, I am just summarizing.

My apologies. Yes, I was not directing this at you but rather the idea as a whole.
post #157 of 161
9/10/08 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by conradjohnsonfan View Post

i didn't claim to have a clue. Nor do I claim to be an expert on this. I am only rehashing what has already been posted on this forum, both in this thread, and others.

I am not sure where you got that I started these discussions, or am making this stuff up, as you seem to be implying. Perhaps you actual intent is less derogatory than your wording makes it appear. Intent often gets lost in text.

Again, I am just summarizing.

The reality is that VERY little has been posted, but plenty has been inferred.
post #158 of 161
9/11/08 at 3:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Because they said 4,500 titles that is nothing to sneeze at. .

Wanna bet there are no 4500 titles around with DCI quality data? 4500 is more like the number of all 1080p HD transfers of the last couple of years available to studios. Most of these are simply 1080p HD color gamut 10 bit masters. Better than Blu Ray but not substantially so. Especially, no DCI colors.
post #159 of 161
9/11/08 at 3:59am
Fine , I'll take it.
post #160 of 161
9/11/08 at 5:13am
As I said in another thread regarding 4K content ; I'd love to have it but the economic model seems difficult to imagine.

Art
post #161 of 161
9/11/08 at 6:34am
Im going to close this down for few and ask please let it rest until a new thread with details and announcement soon to be made. Thank you!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
This thread is locked  

AVS Top Picks