or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please - Page 80  

post #2371 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfbinet
I don't know. Amir, hasn't there been instances where the BD proponents glaringly have tried to block HD DVD initiatives? It is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. On the other hand I guess its better to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Is that how that saying goes?
All organizations have politics and challenges. I am sure for example Sun was very unhappy to see advanced interactivity/PiP be optional in BD players. And Disney was upset to lose the iHD support, etc. Agendas always exist in standards orgs. No one comes there for good of man kind, Microsoft included :).

But yes, I did not enjoy attending those meetings. One of course never knows the real intentions behind the votes. But even abstentions are frustrating as companies are choosing not to help out in creating a standard/lend their wisdom to the specification.
post #2372 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi
This new twin format with 3 layers, it allows one of the following two things:

(1) 1 HD-DVD layer and 2 DVD layers.
(2) 2 HD-DVD layers and 1 DVD layer.

It seems to me that if they succeed having 2 HD-DVD layers and 1 DVD layer, there should be no big problem having 3 HD-DVD layers and 0 DVD layers. To me that sounds like the logical option (3) of the above new twin format (of course the name "twin" doesn't fit then, anymore).

Now I don't think many customers who're thinking about "BluRay or HD-DVD?" will care about this twin format. They *would* care about the 3 layered HD-DVD, though. Why is Toshiba not more agressive?

Or is the new twin format some kind of test balloon to check whether they can push the new spec successfully through the DVD Forum? And if they succeed, they'll try 3 layer HD-DVD next?
Not to step out of place, but there has been "word" that triple layer HD-DVD has gone through testing and is going to the DVD-Forum with an estimated acceptance into the spec for summer '07.
post #2373 of 4623
Here's a potentially weird question...

How tied is either formats structure to the actual disc format? By this I mean as I understand it (perhaps wrongly) both movie formats use UDF to store the basic files, both can use the same video codecs, and both can use largely the same audio codecs (with some differences in how say DD and DD+ is done).

So, when we get PC burner drives capable of writing both HD-DVD and BD discs (as I'm sure we will at some point) and we get software capable of authoring BD or HD-DVD, could we actually author a BD-ROM on an HD-DVD or vice versa??

If the answer is yes, then really this movie format war is about iHD vs BD Live, and which of those will progress. The rest of the technology seems somewhat interchangeable.

I guess where I'm going is does anyone think if universal players become the norm that people will cherry pick the bits they want from the respective movie formats and say put out an iHD format movie on BD media... after all, again if dual format players become available and take hold, what motive is there for movie studios to continue to output on both media... especially if the cost of interactive development is effectively double, as it doesn't seem that there will be much carry over between the two right now. I'm guessing there could be a big market for 3rd party authoring tools that abstract the interactive parts and can compile the same experience for both formats?
post #2374 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
I dont know how you can even defend something like this, of course as a whole it is bad. The whole organzation is built around unifying standard specs for DVD & HD DVD and yet these companies have chosen to back a format that goes against the DVD Forums specs. Why be a part of the organazation if you are not going to abide by it?
You are ignoring the history of the format war. Most of the DVD Forum members proposed what became Blu-ray as the next format. Toshiba disagreed, forcing the Blu-ray companies to form their own association. At that point Toshiba should have formed their own consortium to pursue their vision of high-def optical media. By pursuing it within the DVD Forum they knew the politics they'd be dealing with, given that most of the Blu-ray members would rightfully continue to participate as stakeholders in DVD, for which the DVD Forum was created.
post #2375 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi
This new twin format with 3 layers, it allows one of the following two things:

(1) 1 HD-DVD layer and 2 DVD layers.
(2) 2 HD-DVD layers and 1 DVD layer.

It seems to me that if they succeed having 2 HD-DVD layers and 1 DVD layer, there should be no big problem having 3 HD-DVD layers and 0 DVD layers. To me that sounds like the logical option (3) of the above new twin format (of course the name "twin" doesn't fit then, anymore).
I think this oversimplifies the problem. As noted by the Toshiba engineer's interview, reading the third layer as high-def is trickier due to the extra "noise" caused by the layer being deeper in the disc. Not that it hasn't clearly been shown it's doable, but then you've got to prove you can transition the prototype to manufacturability, both of the discs and of the drives.
post #2376 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
You are ignoring the history of the format war. Most of the DVD Forum members proposed what became Blu-ray as the next format. Toshiba disagreed, forcing the Blu-ray companies to form their own association. At that point Toshiba should have formed their own consortium to pursue their vision of high-def optical media. By pursuing it within the DVD Forum they knew the politics they'd be dealing with, given that most of the Blu-ray members would rightfully continue to participate as stakeholders in DVD, for which the DVD Forum was created.
Bottom line, these companies are not supporting the format set forth by the organzation that they belong too, so why continue to be there and hamper its future. If they want to go there own way, then fully go there own way and step down!
post #2377 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
I am sure for example Sun was very unhappy to see advanced interactivity/PiP be optional in BD players.
Not that advanced interactivity is the same as BD-J, which we all now know is mandatory. If I were speaking for Sun I'd call it a minor issue, given that the vast majority of all BD players in the market by next holiday season will support BD-Live, hence the studios are unlikely to limit their content by what the minority of initial players can support.
post #2378 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
Bottom line, these companies are not supporting the format set forth by the organzation that they belong too, so why continue to be there and hamper its future. If they want to go there own way, then fully go there own way and step down!
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
post #2379 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
I think this oversimplifies the problem. As noted by the Toshiba engineer's interview, reading the third layer as high-def is trickier due to the extra "noise" caused by the layer being deeper in the disc. Not that it hasn't clearly been shown it's doable, but then you've got to prove you can transition the prototype to manufacturability, both of the discs and of the drives.
But looking at the diagram, the HD DVD layers are already the second and third farthest layers. It's the DVD layer that is closer.

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

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

Question: Is Holographic disc suitable for mass-production of Pre-recorded media? I had assumed that it would not really be, but is more suitable as recordable storage medium?
post #2380 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
Bottom line, these companies are not supporting the format set forth by the organzation that they belong too, so why continue to be there and hamper its future. If they want to go there own way, then fully go there own way and step down!
I'm very happy, however, to see that Disney, LG and Samsung are actively participating in YES votes on the HD DVD format :D

Will Pioneer be the next to start voting YES? ;)
post #2381 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
But Talk, if all these companies where not interested in HD-DVD, but HUGE capacity alone, why did they invent a temporary solution like Blu-Ray.??

Why didn´t they go for a holographic dics instead.??
post #2382 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
You are ignoring the history of the format war. Most of the DVD Forum members proposed what became Blu-ray as the next format. Toshiba disagreed, forcing the Blu-ray companies to form their own association. At that point Toshiba should have formed their own consortium to pursue their vision of high-def optical media.
With all those Pro Blu-ray supporters making the proposal to go to Blu-ray ("most of the DVD-Forum"), how is it possible that Toshiba won the disagreement? That is, why wasn't Toshiba simply overruled by vote?
post #2383 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
BINGO!

That last sentence is what SHOULD have happened, and I wonder if that could STILL be implemented. It should allow BD only companies the option to come in if they produce HD-DVD products in the future. I would think by having the BD only companies bow out of say a second tier HD-DVD sub Forum that then abstained voting couldn't block any changes.
post #2384 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighDeff
But Talk, if all these companies where not interested in HD-DVD, but HUGE capacity alone, why did they invent a temporary solution like Blu-Ray.??

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

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

- Talk
post #2385 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
You are ignoring the history of the format war. Most of the DVD Forum members proposed what became Blu-ray as the next format. Toshiba disagreed, forcing the Blu-ray companies to form their own association. At that point Toshiba should have formed their own consortium to pursue their vision of high-def optical media. By pursuing it within the DVD Forum they knew the politics they'd be dealing with, given that most of the Blu-ray members would rightfully continue to participate as stakeholders in DVD, for which the DVD Forum was created.
I find it a bit puzzling that Toshiba alone has enough power to control the fate of the DVD forum if most everyone else wanted the BR to be the next format.

Perhaps a bit more detail on how the separation occured would fill us in?
post #2386 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by PFC5
I would think by having the BD only companies bow out of say a second tier HD-DVD sub Forum that then abstained voting couldn't block any changes.
Since BD-only companies have IP in DVD, and HD-DVD is an extension of DVD, they are still IP holders. But if DVD Forum members were really upset about things, then BD-only companies could be voted off the SC. Hasn't happened, which tells me that people here are more upset than the DVD Forum members are. Every group has, and will have, more than its fair share of politics involved, and nothing can be done about that if you want wide industry support of a standard.
post #2387 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemorel
With all those Pro Blu-ray supporters making the proposal to go to Blu-ray ("most of the DVD-Forum"), how is it possible that Toshiba won the disagreement? That is, why wasn't Toshiba simply overruled by vote?
I would also be interested in the answer to this one.
post #2388 of 4623
Wasn't it true that the DVD forum had to add a couple new members to the HD DVD committe just to be able to get a quorum or whatever to get around the holdup of all the BD members abstaining? I thought there were some issues where simply by abstaining there could not be sufficient votes to pass certain issues.

- Tom
post #2389 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby
I would also be interested in the answer to this one.
Well, it's not technically as simple as "Toshiba". Steering Committee members include(d) Warner, NEC, Thomson, Intel, Microsoft... I don't have a full list, as the DVD Forum's website doesn't list the SC membership for 2003 (which was when "blue-laser DVD" was discussed). Suffice it to say that there were enough non-Blu-ray folks, or format-neutral folks at the time, that the pro-Blu-ray numbers were nearly equal to the anti-Blu-ray numbers plus the don't cares-- and the don't cares could be swayed against.

It wasn't just Toshiba.
post #2390 of 4623
calls for speculation/opinion by insiders:

do you think that back when hd dvd was put forth and adopted by the dvd forum that the bd camp was so sure of itself that it fealt all it had to do was abstain but not take positive action against and that maybe now they would have a different posture?
post #2391 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Because it's the DVD Forum, not the HD-DVD Forum. All those companies have a vested interest in DVD. Why should they leave when a minority of companies wanted to use the Forum to draft a new spec? Clearly those who wanted to draft a new spec should have done so elsewhere, or have set up the governance so that those companies who don't have an IP interest in the format aren't involved.
It is simple and I will explain it again, the DVD Forum did pass and approve the specs for the HD DVD format! Whether you like it or not, the format was approved.

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

If they want to stay and participate with the forum and have there vote in standards I don’t think it is to much to think that they should actually use what is agreed upon
post #2392 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry
Wasn't it true that the DVD forum had to add a couple new members to the HD DVD committe just to be able to get a quorum or whatever to get around the holdup of all the BD members abstaining? I thought there were some issues where simply by abstaining there could not be sufficient votes to pass certain issues.

- Tom
The two new members were Disney and Microsoft. We were added, by the vote of DVD Forum membership, as to broaden the representation at SC level. And yes, prior to that HD DVD spec was stuck and could not get passed. Absention was a real problem from what I understand and voting rules had to be changed to allow forward progress.
post #2393 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT
If they want to stay and participate with the forum and have there vote in standards I don’t think it is to much to think that they should actually use what is agreed upon
Tom, I have to help the other side here :) by stating that DVD Forum does not and can not ask for any product committment from its member companies. We only come together to set a standard, not to agree to build products.

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

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But I go to a lot of standards meetings so I pretend I know a bit about legal side of things. But let's not confuse that with reality :).
post #2394 of 4623
Amir,

Would it be too much to ask you to post some pictures of your Ruby setup at home?
From what we know, you can't play the "don't have a decent camera" and "don't have picture taking skills" card. :p

Diogen.
post #2395 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen
Amir,

Would it be too much to ask you to post some pictures of your Ruby setup at home?
From what we know, you can't play the "don't have a decent camera" and "don't have picture taking skills" card. :p

Diogen.
I would love to see this as well. Of course you can always say you only have a 25" TV to watch "Survivor" on.
post #2396 of 4623
I posted this in the news thread but somone here migh have the answers
http://www.dvdrama.com/news.php?16659&page=1

this is odd.

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


there are some that are
Quote:
DTS-HD Master Audio Anglais stéréo
DTS-HD Hi-Resolution Français Mono, Allemand Stéréo
and

Quote:
TOTAL RECALL
Transfert 16/9 1080p au format respecté 1.85
DTS-HD Master Audio Anglais 5.1
DTS-HD Hi-Resolution Français 4.0, Allemand 5.1
why Mono? Stereo? 4.0?

is there something missing in the specs (i.e. not only DTS) who would want to listen to a movie in Mono? does anyone know why they used these bizarre formats?
post #2397 of 4623
I can only answer the first part. Yes, they are release 10 titles initially and the rest will follow..
post #2398 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyP
why Mono? Stereo? 4.0?
Completely random guess:
4.0 would work for a pre-AC3 surround sound mix that would have been encoded to ProLogicL Center - Left - Right - Surround. If they had an old ProTools surround sound mix source as PCM that was originally used for the ProLogic encode, they could have used that for source.

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

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

I'll ask 'em, and see if they're anything public I can share.
post #2399 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR1
I find it a bit puzzling that Toshiba alone has enough power to control the fate of the DVD forum if most everyone else wanted the BR to be the next format.

Perhaps a bit more detail on how the separation occured would fill us in?
HD-DVD didn't have a majority support - nine of the seventeen steering committee members (nine of the most significant) were initial BDA founders, which is a majority. However, Toshiba chaired the committee and was known to prefer to build on the existing DVD structure (in large part to protect their IP), so it didn't look like a good environment to create the new format in. See http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020222S0020 for a historical reference.
post #2400 of 4623
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm
By the same token, Talk's statement around IP in the format is also invalid. DVD Forum does not care what IP someone may have in something. Those matters are decided outside of the forum. To wit, companies can have IP in DVD Forum standards without even being a member. If you own a patent, you own the patent. There is no requirement to join an org to talk about its usage in order to collect money on it.
Of course there's no requirement to participate, but at the same time if you have a significant revenue stream related to the IP of a format you're certainly going to want some insight and influence into how that IP is used. Microsoft didn't have to participate in SMPTE, but it would have been pretty absurd to have VC-1 standardized without your direct involvement...[/quote]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please