AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Format Battle General Discussion Thread: Discuss it here!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Format Battle General Discussion Thread: Discuss it here! - Page 17  

post #481 of 6336
12/24/06 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

Why that vastly different catagorization, when you admittedly don't even know what Sony's fix entails?

It's a matter of context. The original quote I was replying to implied that Blu-ray updates added BD-J support where none existed before, while the HD-DVD updates were simply minor fixes. I was pointing out that the HD-DVD updates have clearly added major pieces of the HDi implementation where it didn't exist before (since U-control titles simply won't play), while the BD players all generally support BD-J content whether updated or not , though the updates improve the experience.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #482 of 6336
12/24/06 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

I'm sorry, is this speculation, or do you actually know something about the internals of the H.264 decoding pipline in the PS3 that you're hinting about?

I have not undertaken in-depth study of the decoding pipeline of the Cell archtiecture, so I'm speaking in general terms. However, given that Cell is a radically different architecture than those which have preceded it, and the demonstrable fact that as developers learn how to make use of the hardware most platforms undergo substantial performance increases over the first few years following widespread availability coupled with statements made by Sony and other Cell engineers, there is certainly reason to be optimistic that whatever performance has been demonstrated today is likely to be nowhere near what the platform is ultimately capable of.
Quote:


I think you've nicely highlighted the problem in not having mandatory advanced audio decoders in BD - PCM is really the only reliably available high quality codec, but it takes so many bits that it's just not tenable in many cases.

I've also nicely highlighted the benefit of how the BDA has specified TrueHD and DTS-HD MA support. Those releases which have enough space can provide PCM tracks and everyone gets lossless. Those releases without enough space can provide TrueHD or DTS-HD MA tracks and everyone gets at a minimum DD or DTS 5.1, and those with properly equipped players get the full lossless experience. Contrast this with HD-DVD where PCM doesn't appear to be an option due to space constraints, and a studio providing only a TrueHD track can't be assured consumers will experience that in 5.1 (though existing players will provide 5.1 support).

- Talk
post #483 of 6336
12/24/06 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Oh, you mean by daring to talk back Grow some skin, lately?

There is no need for such a juvenille response. Honestly rdjam I don't mind a debate but when you "talk back" it is usually in the form of claims that you so often post but so rarely provide evidence for, personal opinions stated as though they were facts, and attacks against anyone that doesn't agree with what you believe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

splitting hares on a rabbit - all expectations that the PS3 would be BD-Live compliant were dashed on launch - does that meet your criteria better?

Do you have any evidence for that belief or is this a personal opinion?


Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

BD-J won't be "beating up" HDi anytime soon.

For someone that says this with such confidence it is telling that you had to add the term "anytime soon" to that statement. After all if you believed that HDi could do everything that BD-J could you wouldn't have bothered to put a time limit on that statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

and BD-Live, no matter what it can do, won't be anjoyed by the majority of Bluray owners, so is as good as irrelevant.

Another personal opinion stated as though it was a fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Of COURSE you dislike it. The truth hurts. The lowest common denominator of Bluray has now been set at BD-J, so all talk about whether BD-Live can match or beat HDi is "marginal".

Actually I was comparing the requirements of BD-Live to HD DVD in terms of players. You can't compare HDi, which is an interactive layer, to a player spec such as BD-Live. Also rdjam the most likely reason that you don't want to compare BD-Live to HD DVD is because BD-Live does have higher requirements than HD DVD and will be capable of more because of that.
post #484 of 6336
12/24/06 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

... Besides which, your claim even as written can't be supported, since you have no proof that the Pioneer won't be upgradeable to support BD-Live.
...

Well, I'll not state future absolutes.. because I know the sticky trouble that can cause...

But, it would be odd to state this (on pg. 7 under "BD-J Application") in the user manual if there was ever any intention of perhaps providing BD-Live support in the future:

Quote:


(This player does not support
downloadable BD-J content, direct connection to the Internet or the
retrieval of content through the Internet.)
post #485 of 6336
12/24/06 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

It's a matter of context. The original quote I was replying to implied that Blu-ray updates added BD-J support where none existed before, while the HD-DVD updates were simply minor fixes. I was pointing out that the HD-DVD updates have clearly added major pieces of the HDi implementation where it didn't exist before (since U-control titles simply won't play), while the BD players all generally support BD-J content whether updated or not , though the updates improve the experience.

(emphasis mine)

I'm not so sure that's clearly the case, as you state.

If a U-control title uses a HDi feature or menuing feature that has a bug so that it does not initialize properly to play the title, that's pretty different that the feature being entirely absent. Do you havge any evidence whatsoever that you aren't speculating?

However there's a good portion of those quotes of yours that are incongruous that you continue to ignore.

Regarding BD-J:

Quote:


Test suites aren't perfect, so there will likely always be bugs found even when a player passes the test suite (bugs typically result in new tests being added so that future players will have a more robust test suite).

Regarding HDi:

Quote:


...Either the initial HD-DVD players (both standalone and PC-based) a) weren't compliant with the HDi spec, b) were compliant with the spec but the compliance tests are incredibly weak...

Why in the initial case is the test suite a positive when it results in Sony releasing a fix that (as Alex Millians reports) allows some BD-J titles to play, whereas HDi doing the same is a sign of "incredible weakness"?

Why don't we agree that both platforms will require fixes as is the case with so many CE devices these days?
post #486 of 6336
12/24/06 at 6:13pm
Quote:


Well now that the "science fiction' campaign about BD50 is over,

Its not a science fiction novel but until more releases are DL50 than SL25 easy dual layer replication is still a work of fiction.

That will be the case until the overwhelming amount of releases are dual layer. When most Blu-ray releases are still 25 GB and most HD DVD releases are 30GB, Blu-ray is still at a capacity disadvantage no matter how you spin it.
post #487 of 6336
12/24/06 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post

Its not a science fiction novel but until more releases are DL50 than SL25 easy dual layer replication is still a work of fiction.

That will be the case until the overwhelming amount of releases are dual layer. When most Blu-ray releases are still 25 GB and most HD DVD releases are 30GB, Blu-ray is still at a capacity disadvantage no matter how you spin it.

Sorry, I forgot... once a talking point, always a talking point...

Do your worst....

b2b
post #488 of 6336
12/24/06 at 6:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

"Imply possibly" isn't a big statement of confidence.


I don't expect you to accept my opinion without verification. I'm confident that by consulting objective reviews, and doing your own head-to-head evaluation of HD DVD v. BD titles, you'd come to the conclusion that there is no quality advantage to BD, even when the format is used to its full advantage.


Content is political, and there's no evidience for PQ. As for costs? HD DVD is cheaper to implement (in players, authoring, and replication). It's hard to tease that out right now, but lower costs for content creation inevitably mean lower costs for consumers and a richer array of products and titles in the long term.

My statement was badly constructed. It should have been:

"Better specs mean/imply that it is possible to have better PQ and AQ." That was how it was in my head =)

The thing with specs is that until someone uses them to the full, it remains a possibility but it is a very real one, nonetheless.

PQ on HD-DVD titles is wonderful but since a better spec is available, I am going to do the greedy thing and opt for more content and better specs. The content differential is already real and I have great faith that the content people at the studios will use this bitrate to good effect. if not now, then later. My PS3 can wait.
post #489 of 6336
12/24/06 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

And there is no such plan. There's one HD DVD spec.

And there is one Blu-ray spec.

But no such plan? Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?
post #490 of 6336
12/24/06 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarepants View Post

And there is one Blu-ray spec.

But no such plan? Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?

Cue Foley... {Sound of Other Shoe dropping}...

b2b
post #491 of 6336
12/24/06 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarepants View Post

And there is one Blu-ray spec.

But no such plan? Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?


Why yes... please do comment.
post #492 of 6336
12/24/06 at 11:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post

Its not a science fiction novel but until more releases are DL50 than SL25 easy dual layer replication is still a work of fiction.

Based on that logic getting more studio/CE support behind HD DVD is a work of fiction as well. Also you have to admit there was a lot of negativity about dual layer Blu-ray discs being posted by certain HD DVD supporters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty View Post

When most Blu-ray releases are still 25 GB and most HD DVD releases are 30GB, Blu-ray is still at a capacity disadvantage no matter how you spin it.

If one cared about capacity wouldn't the long term difference of 20 GB be considered a more significant factor than the short term difference of 5 GB?


Quote:
Originally Posted by squarepants View Post

Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?

I too would like for one of the HD DVD insiders to post about this since until today I had never even heard of performance levels for HD DVD.
post #493 of 6336
12/25/06 at 6:37am
Quote:


I too would like for one of the HD DVD insiders to post about this since until today I had never even heard of performance levels for HD DVD.

Ditto. What are the new performance levels and what is their impact on compatibility? Maybe a question for the insider thread. I'm also curious about how a final AACS agreement will affect compatibility for each format when/if they ever get such a thing.

- Tom
post #494 of 6336
12/25/06 at 1:45pm
Steve, you clearly are very detail-oriented (not saying this as a bad thing) and won't feel this issue is closed until I've answered precisely this question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

Why don't we agree that both platforms will require fixes as is the case with so many CE devices these days?

I fully agree with that statement. I just am unwilling to allow the notion to exist that HD-DVD players have shipped from the start with full HDi support while Blu-ray players shipped with no BD-J support. There is ample evidence that significant parts of the HDi spec were not present in the HD-A1 1.0 firmware, and there is no evidence that any BD player has shipped without BD-J support (other than ambiguously worded Samsung/Sony statements regarding what would be in future updates).

That's all.

Merry Christmas if this be a holiday you observe!
post #495 of 6336
12/25/06 at 2:58pm
from the new thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by g55555sim View Post

CES - Toshiba plans aggressive HD DVD push at CES

http://www.networkworld.com/news/200...essive-hd.html

Quote:
When asked if Toshiba would be announcing cheaper players Fujii remained tight-lipped on the company's plans but said, "At first I though the price threshold is $499. Maybe coming next is $399 and after that is $299." He didn't give a timeframe for this possible drop in prices.

It will be interesting if any lower priced HD DVD players will be announced at CES.

Quote:
While both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc have appeared in stores during 2006 sales of both formats remain relatively low. Prices of compatible machines are high and the formats continue their battle. That means consumers buying either format risk being left with a machine on the losing side that could end up being nothing but an expensive door-stop in a few years.

Comments like this irritate me sometimes.

I think that now the current 2nd gen $499 HD DVD players with their upconversion capabilities won't ever be doorstops, they always can act as upconverting SD DVD players and the PS3 will always be a nice game machine, even if their respective formats HD fail.

Right now, for their prices they are starting to become solid values, even if the success of their HD formats are in doubt. A consumer who bought either one would probably be very satisfied with their purchase.

We should encourage people to go out and enjoy either flavor of HD now and enjoy and get their value now and not worry about wether in a few years they may not be able to buy HD discs in their format of choice.
post #496 of 6336
12/25/06 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

Steve, you clearly are very detail-oriented (not saying this as a bad thing)...

Now if only my poor wife would agree with your parenthetical sentiment...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

...and won't feel this issue is closed until I've answered precisely this question: I fully agree with that statement. I just am unwilling to allow the notion to exist that HD-DVD players have shipped from the start with full HDi support while Blu-ray players shipped with no BD-J support. There is ample evidence that significant parts of the HDi spec were not present in the HD-A1 1.0 firmware, and there is no evidence that any BD player has shipped without BD-J support (other than ambiguously worded Samsung/Sony statements regarding what would be in future updates).

Fair enough. I'l lmeet you half way: I have no absolute proof any BD players shipped without BD-J (non-Live flavor) either... and assume they do until it proved otherwise.

Likewise I've no absulute proof HD players whipped without a full HDi implementation either, despite your conjecture.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

That's all.

Merry Christmas if this be a holiday you observe!

Thanks for the sentiments... you too please be safe and enjoy whatever time you are taking with family, etc...
post #497 of 6336
12/25/06 at 7:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by What'sHD View Post

Amir, it was actually 2 of your posts in the Insiders' thread that conveyed to me and others that PQ was not the reason for MPEG2 being chosen by Paramount (see here and here for 2 such posts of yours).


Did I misunderstand your posts? Here is my post in reply to which you said that an assumption of mine is wrong:

"Based on the insider thread info, Paramount chose mpeg2 for the BD title for reasons besides PQ. I would have thought that since Paramount was willing to spend the money on two separate encodes, BDA could have requested for a max bitrate VC1 encode to demo the advantage of higher bitrate."

To re-iterate, you said in the Insiders thread (or I understood you to have said) that PQ was not the reason (see above 2 links).

Now, when I wrote as much in this thread, you say no insider explained dealings with Paramount. Besides PQ, the other "assumption" of mine in the quoted post is that of financial incentives.

That is actually based on insider info from Penton-man. Check here for a post by Penton on the subject of absence of financial incentives for Paramount to use MPEG2. Penton also mentioned that Paramount was motivated by PQ. One of you is incorrect..

Other insiders reading this (including Penton and Paidgeek): Did Paramount choose MPEg2 for PQ or not for PQ? An honest query

I found your post very interesting in that I think it's educational in a number of ways.

We have a question here about Paramount and why they chose to release an HD-DVD VC1 encoded title with Mpeg2 when shipping the BD-50 version. I would think this would seem odd to everyone. After you've already spent the time and effort to do the VC1 encode, why go back and do it all over again with a different codec for the BD release?

So the question gets posed, and the responses come.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know.

The response from Amir.......
I can't disclose the real reason but I can assure you that this is not the reason.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.

The response from Amir.......
Given public facts, I agree it seems odd. But given the non-public facts, it is not as much.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know. It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.

The response from Penton-Man........
Paramount had to pay to have the MPEG2 stream encoded when they could have chosen to recycle the VC1 stream and reduce costs.
They were not incentivized in any way to use MPEG2; other than to achieve what they believed to be the best picture quality possible with this title.

So we seem to have conflicting statements from two sources. In a situation like this I believe it's always best to sit back and review what we know.

1. Paramount must have had some reason for going out of their way to do this.
2. If Paramounts motive was to produce a better looking movie for Blu-Ray (as Penton-Man implies), the effort was not successful (comments in the review describe the BD version looking a little coarser, but ultimately calling it a draw between formats).
3. Amir is saying that the decision was not made based on Paramounts belief that MPEG2 would be more faithful to the source. If Amir is correct, then there are no surprises for Paramount in the reviews of the finished product.
4. We know Amir is an insider because he is open about who he is and what he does. He's a supporter of VC1 and HD-DVD technologies because he is involved with their development, and benefits from their success. The statements he makes are publicly attributable to Amir Majidimehr Corporate Vice President, Consumer Media Technology Group, Microsoft.
5. We know Penton-Man is an insider because the Mods vouch for him as one. Statements he makes are publicly attributable to Penton-Man.

It's up to each of us to figure out what the significance is of the information we have.
post #498 of 6336
12/25/06 at 7:37pm
after sluggin thru this thread two or 3 things stood out,

2 were comments by dr1394

1 being

The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.

Ron

2, was a hint that toshibas method of 1080p24 couold be ruff.

and finally the introduction of a performance critera that could affect playback.

Could someone explain this in more detail, as there is somthing going on in the HD-DVD camp that it sounds like we should know about. unless its spin of course
post #499 of 6336
12/25/06 at 8:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gandley View Post

after sluggin thru this thread two or 3 things stood out,

2 were comments by dr1394

1 being

The situation is worse for HD-DVD. Future players won't be able to play currently authored titles to their full potential.

Ron

2, was a hint that toshibas method of 1080p24 couold be ruff.

and finally the introduction of a performance critera that could affect playback.

Could someone explain this in more detail, as there is somthing going on in the HD-DVD camp that it sounds like we should know about. unless its spin of course

Well, it's Christmas and I'm sure dr1394's got better things to do. I'd be curious to see him answer these as well. I have no idea on #1 as I've never seen this comment before. On #2, I can guess, but I shouldn't presume someone's answer.
post #500 of 6336
12/25/06 at 9:45pm
Think about what factor is requiring high performance CPU. Without using that (but it introduces limited performance, or maybe even missing functionality), players could be cheaper.
post #501 of 6336
12/25/06 at 9:56pm
This just didn't seem appropriate for the news thread. You've got to love the Brits. Warning this contains offensive language and statements that are insulting to all insiders.

HD disk format wars are over
A clear victor emerges
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36574
post #502 of 6336
12/26/06 at 1:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Channel View Post

I found your post very interesting in that I think it's educational in a number of ways.

We have a question here about Paramount and why they chose to release an HD-DVD VC1 encoded title with Mpeg2 when shipping the BD-50 version. I would think this would seem odd to everyone. After you've already spent the time and effort to do the VC1 encode, why go back and do it all over again with a different codec for the BD release?

So the question gets posed, and the responses come.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know.

The response from Amir.......
I can't disclose the real reason but I can assure you that this is not the reason.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.

The response from Amir.......
Given public facts, I agree it seems odd. But given the non-public facts, it is not as much.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know. It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.

The response from Penton-Man........
Paramount had to pay to have the MPEG2 stream encoded when they could have chosen to recycle the VC1 stream and reduce costs.
They were not incentivized in any way to use MPEG2; other than to achieve what they believed to be the best picture quality possible with this title.

So we seem to have conflicting statements from two sources. In a situation like this I believe it's always best to sit back and review what we know.

1. Paramount must have had some reason for going out of their way to do this.
2. If Paramounts motive was to produce a better looking movie for Blu-Ray (as Penton-Man implies), the effort was not successful (comments in the review describe the BD version looking a little coarser, but ultimately calling it a draw between formats).
3. Amir is saying that the decision was not made based on Paramounts belief that MPEG2 would be more faithful to the source. If Amir is correct, then there are no surprises for Paramount in the reviews of the finished product.
4. We know Amir is an insider because he is open about who he is and what he does. He's a supporter of VC1 and HD-DVD technologies because he is involved with their development, and benefits from their success. The statements he makes are publicly attributable to Amir Majidimehr Corporate Vice President, Consumer Media Technology Group, Microsoft.
5. We know Penton-Man is an insider because the Mods vouch for him as one. Statements he makes are publicly attributable to Penton-Man.

It's up to each of us to figure out what the significance is of the information we have.

It bears no significance that amir posts with his real name, despite what you are insinuating. He can be easily seen to be protecting his interests (dictated by his position, understandably), though with shrouded words.
post #503 of 6336
12/26/06 at 1:56am
If the Chinese have their way, the battle between HD-DVD and Blu-ray will be over before the war has even been able to be fought!

http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200612/25/t2..._9869903.shtml

China has BILLIONS of people. China is going to do EVD, and not do HD-DVD nor Blu-ray at all! Hurray for China!

EVD:
1) Capacity of at least 50GB just like BD50
2) Players start at $150
3) A codec that rivals h.264 and VC-1 with compression for FREE, called VP7
4) Uses conventional red lasers just like DVD which is why players start at $150
5) Has a very good chance of catching on, because of:
a) has DRM features that make pirating much much harder than with dvd, piracy is huge problem in China.
b) by 2008 China plans to have all EVD and eliminate DVD!
c) China will only have ONE standard ( much better than two with HD-DVD and Blu-ray huh?) which will not cause some movies to be on one "format" or another like we are currently experiencing. Either a movie is available or it's not. END OF STORY. No more "get both players and stop being a format nazi"

I for one hope what I just said comes true so the madness ends. We as consumers are being played as fools and pawns. Its time something happened to stop this greed and power strides both Toshiba and Sony are taking. Everyone needs to act now while it's not too late.

No matter who wins I will not play this Blu-ray vs HD-DVD game. This isn't another "BETAMAX vs VHS", who are you all kidding? You're talking to all fellow videophiles here, since when was either even a viable format? When you're looking at degraded video quality for every play and nearly every release is "formated to fit your screen because we love you". Every single person who keeps buying either of these new formats is causing you and everyone else to lose. Both of these formats are losers, it's up to all of us to determine how long it takes before both are just a footnote in the history of HD.
post #504 of 6336
12/26/06 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio View Post

Think about what factor is requiring high performance CPU. Without using that (but it introduces limited performance, or maybe even missing functionality), players could be cheaper.

The first and second generation Toshiba products could not be more different than each other from architectural point of view. Yet what you claim, has not come to pass. Both players play everything because we test these devices with titles before releasing them and should bugs come up, we have a complete system for updates.

Maybe you can explain how the varying performance in different BD players, with different architectures and interactivity profiles, will do better than HD DVD in content compatibility.

Back to Ron's comment, until he explains what he means, I have no idea how to answer. There is nothing specific there. And goes against data/logic already in the marketplace.
post #505 of 6336
12/26/06 at 6:42am
Let me add one more thing in the interest of fair reporting . Both products are very, very complicated from point of view of achieving compatibility with titles. The HD DVD interactivity spec is some 800 pages and I can only imagine how many books are needed to describe BD-J/Live profiles. And since no one has invented the art of writing perfect software (), we have all undertaken a massive engineering effort to make these formats do what they are spec'ed to do.

BD's solution seems to be to stay away from the complicated parts until the dust settles. That is a good approach from product engineering, but of course, not so good in the eyes of the public and press. HD DVD is relying on close collaboration between its companies who are not direct competitors, to make sure discs and players move up together in compatibility and performance.

Both methods can hit potholes. This is why we made sure to also have a strong system for updates including standard networking on each player. This is how we keep Windows/Xbox working so given the new complexity required in these CE devices, same approach must be taken. Anything less is sticking one's head in the sand.

Finally, Rio is a bit right about performance and for that, I recommend reading my answer in the insider thread.
post #506 of 6336
12/26/06 at 7:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarepants View Post

Quote:


Originally Posted by benwaggoner
And there is no such plan. There's one HD DVD spec.

And there is one Blu-ray spec.

But no such plan? Perhaps you could comment on the performance level 2 and 3 proposals for HD DVD players? Would content developed for those be 100% compatible with current HD DVD players?

? ? ?

b2b
post #507 of 6336
12/26/06 at 7:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by b2bonez View Post

? ? ?

b2b

Come again in English?
post #508 of 6336
12/26/06 at 8:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

Well hold on a minute.

I've probably talked more about the profile confusion than just about anyone here, and I agree it's difficult to get a straight read on what the players today are capable of.

But where do you have evidence that not a single player released today will ever have a firmware upgrade to enable a single BD-Live feature?

Hi Steve, with full respect, a BD player either meets the BD-Live spec, or it doesn't. It's not a question of whether it can do "a feature of BD-Live". If a BD player is not BD-Live compliant then it's not BD-Live compliant.

PiP is only one feature of BD-Live, but we already know that the first-gen BD players cannot do it, so they can never be BD-Live compliant.

The PS3 is still an open question in terms of BD-Live - "rah rah talk8r" says he's "pretty sure" that the PS3 will be able to be BD-Live compliant with firmware, but I'm sceptical.
post #509 of 6336
12/26/06 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

Just as you do on your petition website, you're trying to use devious language to make an invalid point.

Totally valid point - those BD standalone players are obsolete before they even get home.

Quote:


Why do you limit your claim to standalone players? The PS3 has clearly outsold all other Blu-ray (and HD-DVD) players by a tremendous margin, and many of those will be used for BD playback.

So are you advocating that BD fans ONLY buy the PS3, and that there are not "really" any BD players available, since you obviously want to pretend they are not there, just because one can buy a PS3?

Quote:


How exactly were those hopes dashed? Because Sony didn't immediately claim BD-Live support? Are there no other possible reasons why Sony would wait to announce it? Are there other players which have announced BD-Live support which Sony is afraid of losing sales to? Are there BD-Live software titles currently available which won't sell if people don't think they have a player capable of supporting them? Is it not possible that Sony wants to save some announcements for spring when they'll be making announcements to maintain momentum? Is it not possible that the BD-Live spec may have compliance tests not yet in place for which Sony intends to wait before announcing support?

Wheew - long paragraph there - but the short answer is that I don't think BD-Live is even READY yet. THAT's why - and until it is ready, Sony won't know whether the PS3 can be made to play it. There is also a chance that they will now "re-engineer" BD-Live to ensure that a PS3 can manage it, but we'll have to see.

Quote:


I've just given you four very solid reasons why Sony might choose not to announce BD-Live support at the current time even if the PS3 is fully capable.

Yet you didn't include the most likely reason - BD-LIVE AINT READY YET

Quote:


You have yet to give me one reason why the PS3 is not technically capable of it. Thanks for raising the quality of discussion here.

Capable of what? You can't aim for something you can't see, can you? BD-Live is about as visible as an Area 51 stealth program.

The more you post, the more it start to look like those posts are just an empty PR campaign - one really struggles to find any true insider technical value at all...
post #510 of 6336
12/26/06 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Totally valid point - those BD standalone players are obsolete before they even get home.

So are you advocating that BD fans ONLY buy the PS3, and that there are not "really" any BD players available, since you obviously want to pretend they are not there, just because one can buy a PS3?

Wheew - long paragraph there - but the short answer is that I don't think BD-Live is even READY yet. THAT's why - and until it is ready, Sony won't know whether the PS3 can be made to play it. There is also a chance that they will now "re-engineer" BD-Live to ensure that a PS3 can manage it, but we'll have to see.

Yet you didn't include the most likely reason - BD-LIVE AINT READY YET

Capable of what? You can't aim for something you can't see, can you? BD-Live is about as visible as an Area 51 stealth program.

The more you post, the more it start to look like those posts are just an empty PR campaign - one really struggles to find any true insider technical value at all...

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the Perf-Level 2 & 3 for HD-DVD.. So far there are a few vague ramblings, but nothing that gives a real clue as to what they do or how they will alter the HD-DVD landscape.. I guess surprises are good for HD-DVD..

b2b
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
This thread is locked  

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Format Battle General Discussion Thread: Discuss it here!