AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 189 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Does HD DVDs mandatory network & persistent storage specs trump BDs disc space?


One of the major advantages that Blu-ray has is the storage capacity of 50GB on two layers versus 30GB on two layers for HD DVD.


What if HD DVD had an advantage that trumped it?


We already know that that the DL30's are economical for HD DVD to produce and lets assume that DL50's will become so for Blu-ray in the near future. That leaves aside the fact that Blu-ray SL 25's will probably always cost less and there may be an incentive for studios to release on 25GB instead of 50 GB. So its either 30>25 or 50>30.


So one way HD DVD has an advantage until double layer 50 GBs become common and cost effective. Then Blu-ray 50 GB will be better? Right?


Everyone keeps on talking about the extra capacity of BD-50 is an advantage.


Well maybe not. Leaving aside whether or not the science experiment TL 45/51 HD DVDs even see the sunshine, I think there may be another HD DVD storage advantage that may become critical.


It's HD DVD mandatory network connections and persistent storage advantage.


Stay with me here.


For Blu-ray to have an advantage, a case has got to be made that one needs more than 30 gigabytes, but less than 50. The fact is that the number of movies that somehow create a better experience this way is quite limited. If there difference was between 10 and 50, that would be one thing. But 30 and 50, not.


HD DVD has already proven that 30 GB using VC-1 is enough for the long main feature. So the extra capacity of Blu-ray would be used for other secondary video and audio or interactive features. Those extras can be shorter or longer but the point is that they can be downloaded from the Internet into the HD DVD player for local playback if they are not on the disk.


But there is a finite amount of storage on the HD DVD player itself. So its better to have it on the disc. Right? Maybe not


I am thinking that HD DVD may have an advantage that trumps that physical capacity. I mean with networking HD DVD may effectively have a infinite storage capacity that would overwhelm 50GB and make it look puny.


All HD DVD players have mandatory network capability. What happens if you have your HD DVD player on your home network and can connect an add on hard drive right to the HD DVD player and then to the network or set aside a piece of you home PC's hard drive as a dedicated HD DVD storage folder?


HD DVD mandates networking. The cost of hard disks and flash is dropping rapidly everyday. Add a hard disk to an HD DVD player and you can augment the 30 gigabytes with fresh content to 50 and more. Put another way, given networking connection, HD DVD titles can have infinite capacity. BD does not mandate networking so it can not benefit this way. Broadband connection speeds are increasing and higher and higher internet download speeds will increase in time.


One scenario that I see is if the HD DVD player can be firmware updated to find a secondary HD DVD storage folder on any network PC or hard drive. Then any downloaded content could be pulled from the internet downloaded through the HD DVD player and stored in AACS encrypted form on the home network storage folder. It can then can be play backed later. This would need a program installed on the PC.


I know that most people are hooking up their HD DVD player through a home network router to get the internet access. I don't have that connection live right now, so I don't know if the HD DVD player shows up as a device on that network. I assume if it doesn't a firmware update can make that happen if it is required.


I assume one would have to set up a folder on a PC or hard drive with a special install program to enable it to be the supplemental HD DVD storage container.


Another scenario is a cheap extra hard drive stand alone box connected through the Ethernet port on the HD DVD player, then to the home network. This could be pre-configured to work with a firmware update to the DVD player.


Everyone talks about how downloads may make this silly format war obsolete in time anyway. Well what happens when you have the main feature on HD DVD now, but can use future downloading in the future to keep that content fresh?


I could certainly see this working for short 20 min content or trailers or secondary audio etc that would smaller than the main features whose transfer times or buffering needs would be smaller.


Just a few questions I have on how this might work.


1) Does every HD DVD player on the market now (HD A1 XA1 A2 A20 XA2) have the capability to access storage on a home network? I think the answer is yes.


2) How would network transfer affect playback on the HD DVD ?


3)Is there enough of a mandatory buffer on the HD DVD devices to make playback on the HD DVD player from the storage location effective?


4)Would the content stored on the network location have to be fully transferred and stored on the HD DVD player?


5)How much storage is spec mandated for a HD DVD device?


Of course the only reason that this is a HD DVD advantage is that HD DVD has these capabilities in the specs. The only way that Blu-ray can do this is to throw some player owners over the side. They might do that but 50 GB might be enough to stop them.


Any other thoughts?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I realize that this may not come into play right away but it might happen within a few years.


I feel that HD DVD has the advantage now with its short term lower replication costs and the problems with Blu-ray ramping up its DL 50 production capacity.


A lot of Blu-ray supporters feel that Blu-ray's physical capacity make it more future proof. But what happens if the mandatory network and storage support in every single HD DVD player can actually harness the future increases in bandwidth and hard drive and flash memory storage better than Blu-ray?


Does that make HD DVD actually the format that is more future proof?


Maybe HD DVD's software and networking and bandwidth would actually combine to have more capacity than a 50 GB or even 100 GB Blu-ray disc ten years from now. I mean how big will a $100 harddrive be in five years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty /forum/post/0


3)Is there enough of a mandatory buffer on the HD DVD devices to make playback on the HD DVD player from the storage location effective?

Great post! I guess yes and no for this question. Yes for the updated trailer/commentary track/SD PiP stream. But the 15Mbps max S-EVOB secondary stream might push 1G/2G to the limit. Xbox360 could have a chance.


I think there is another question. Could released titles support new extras? My take is yes. Because 99% of the HD DVD is authored in advance mode. The disc will first look into the persistent storage for new HDi menu. Therefore the menu could always be updated to reflect new options such as new sound track or even managed copy button.


I remember Universal demo this ability on the Miami Vice this CES.



For bluray, I guess there is no chance to update the menu on none BD-J titles. If you couldn't update the menu, how could studio blend new stuff into existing main feature seamlessly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty /forum/post/0


I realize that this may not come into play right away but it might happen within a few years.

HD DVD needs to do this now. They need to bring this ability/advantage to the table fast. They don't have that few years time luxury. Maybe bluray does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty /forum/post/0


I feel that HD DVD has the advantage now with its short term lower replication costs and the problems with Blu-ray ramping up its DL 50 production capacity.


A lot of Blu-ray supporters feel that Blu-ray's physical capacity make it more future proof. But what happens if the mandatory network and storage support in every single HD DVD player can actually harness the future increases in bandwidth and hard drive and flash memory storage better than Blu-ray?.

I think it is not only about storage. To me, it is about which format could more easily blend into the media server environment and give user a seamless experience. Unfortunately, MS is behind HD DVD this time. If HD DVD lose, I hope they would put all the effort behind bluray and continue to push this angle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty /forum/post/0


Does that make HD DVD actually the format that is more future proof?

Future is using JPEG2000 losslessly transfer D5/DI master to my screen.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
After flying back from CES I kept thinking about the HD DVD demos of iHD (or HDi) I saw. I saw the Toshiba demo of trading bookmarks and another of downloaded content.


It occurred to me that the future will allow big bandwidth and big storage and that HD DVD is ready set to take advantage of it, and Blu-ray might have a problem in migrating to that model, when it is already built into HD DVD.


I mean, by the time DL 50 discs are more common than SL 25's Toshiba might market a standalone hard drive or flash memory module that would plug into the network jack that could increase easily increase storage for anything you wanted.


HD DVD developers could assume it could be plugged into any player, since they all have that jack. If you didn't have it, no problem the 30 GB on the disk is enough, but if you wanted to get one, push content or immediate requests could be added to any HD DVD disc you owned.


That could be the best of both worlds for the studios. You need to have a physical disc but you could have updated information downloaded with limitless capacity.


I just don't know why Blu-ray didn't mandate those specs for all Blu-ray players.


Am I being silly here or could this be a serious advantage for HD DVD in the future?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
This is really a stretch. First of all, the percentage of people who are likely to have a fairly sophisticated configuration supporting network attached storage is very, very small. Even getting people to attach a network is tough; asking them to configure storage on the network is nearly impossible. You also ignore whether network speeds will be sufficient (many people will use wifi; in practice wifi speeds are almost always much slower than required for streaming HD audio/video).


Finally, there's a good possibility that the percentage of Blu-ray owners who with working network connections will be higher than HD DVD owners even though network support is not mandatory for Blu-ray. Why? Because PS3 owners are far more likely than standalone owners to attach to the network, given all the value provided by a networked PS3.


Keep grasping at straws, but Blu-ray has a clear and compelling capacity advantage which is going to be very difficult to overcome. Yet another reason why HD DVD is simply "good enough", but no better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t /forum/post/0


Finally, there's a good possibility that the percentage of Blu-ray owners who with working network connections will be higher than HD DVD owners even though network support is not mandatory for Blu-ray. Why? Because PS3 owners are far more likely than standalone owners to attach to the network, given all the value provided by a networked PS3.

The XBox 360 has a better story there. Add a Windows Home Server (WHS) and bing you've got a drop dead easy means for creating network storage. Will the PS3 be supporting storage to such a device?
Quote:
Keep grasping at straws, but Blu-ray has a clear and compelling capacity advantage which is going to be very difficult to overcome. Yet another reason why HD DVD is simply "good enough", but no better.

I've always thought of the space "advantage" as irrelevant. The studios are the ones who should be asking for more space and they're not. For PC backup storage it is relevant, but I'm talking about movies. The networking scenario is very interesting to me personally and WHS will make it approachable for the general market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,265 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty /forum/post/0


Am I being silly here or could this be a serious advantage for HD DVD in the future?

I don't think you're being silly, and I don't think we'll have to wait years to see this kind of thing implemented on certain HD-DVD releases. Case in point, Bandai has announced four HD-DVD releases, and the word for CES and what they themselves say in their press release is that one of the three reasons behind their decision to release content on HD-DVD is a "collaboration (with MS) on new business models based on HDi network functions, Managed Copy, and other functions that combine packaged media with networks." So we'll have four titles out by around this summer that will have been designed with the idea of adding extra content through networking in mind.


So if nothing else, Bandai's announcement shows that MS is committed to exploring these features of HD-DVD and helping to get products out in the market that take advantage of them:

http://www.bandaivisual.us/pdfs/PressRelease_HD.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t /forum/post/0


Even getting people to attach a network is tough; asking them to configure storage on the network is nearly impossible.

This is because the link between CE device and computer is always broke or there is never a transparent/user friendly link to begin with. I want to connect my CE device and computer storage together now. I want my DVR to talk with DLNA/media server. I want MCE extender/DLNA player built into TV.


Impossible is a strong word. Make the experience plug and play should change that.


Playforsure on the Pioneer bluray player is a step toward the right direction. Windows home server is another piece in the puzzle. I hope other software companies bring their solutions too.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t /forum/post/0


Keep grasping at straws, but Blu-ray has a clear and compelling capacity advantage which is going to be very difficult to overcome.

It is sad you call this grasping the straws. Competition could better each other. I sincerely think PQ/AQ alone could not make this generation a mainstream phenomena. They need to bring something big in the convenience department against DVD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,993 Posts
IMO Persistent Storage is a huge factor in my preferrence for HD DVD. In the last decade we've seen magnetic storage grow by a factor of 100x. I'm constantly amazed that people are impressed by 200GB optical discs. That's peanuts. Hitachi is already bringing a 1TB drive for $400 this year. If today's prognostications about storage scaling are correct in between 5-10 yrs from now you will see single drives capable of storing 10-20TB of data. Optical technologies simply will not be able to keep pace.


Another important note. The Reference Platform that Microsoft and Broadcom are working on utilizes the BCM7440 SoC. That chipset supports 2 SATA connections in addition to an IDE port. That would seem to me to offer the possibility of up to two storage devices internal to a player once the firmware and AACS Managed Copy features are finished.


It would seem that MC offers the ability to obviate the need for constantly increasing the size of the discs to hold more content. I believe Amir said that the banwidth coming from persistent storage items doesn't factor into the 30Mpbs cap for data on the physical disc. So it becomes mighty powerful to have content stored in persistent storage syncronized with disc content. I imagine that for HD DVD it would mean that 2-Disc premium movies could be delivered yet consumers could still enjoy the benefits of extras sync'd with the movie by utilizing MC on the extras disc. Imagine a Jukebox player with a couple of 1TB hard drives for storing movies or extras so that one slot only takes a movie disc. When a movie is played the player automatically syncs the extras with the disc playing seamlessly.


I don't know how strong the BD support is for this stuff but certainly it's something that HD DVD should be focused on. I'd like to see the ability to make custom intros for persistent storage so that right before the movie you could have a 3D animation saying "The Kosty Family Theatre" or whatever you want. This would be placed right before the menu or wherever you feel it's appropriate.


I believe there's going to be the eventual option for studios to monitize MC in the right way. By offering a tiered service that allows consumers to decide how much involvement they want. For instance I'd likely pay a monthly fee to have unique content downloadable for my favorite movies. Simple stuff like updated Bios and trailers would be free. Higher end features for pay would be alternate endings, different soundtracks, more MC flexibility etc.


Consumers will have to be eased into the transition from physical to virtual media. I think both of these new formats have the ability to ease that transition by embracing the best of the physical medium properties with that of the virtual. Who can execute this in the cleanest way? We're going to see this year I hope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,993 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t /forum/post/0


This is really a stretch. First of all, the percentage of people who are likely to have a fairly sophisticated configuration supporting network attached storage is very, very small. Even getting people to attach a network is tough; asking them to configure storage on the network is nearly impossible. You also ignore whether network speeds will be sufficient (many people will use wifi; in practice wifi speeds are almost always much slower than required for streaming HD audio/video).


Finally, there's a good possibility that the percentage of Blu-ray owners who with working network connections will be higher than HD DVD owners even though network support is not mandatory for Blu-ray. Why? Because PS3 owners are far more likely than standalone owners to attach to the network, given all the value provided by a networked PS3.


Keep grasping at straws, but Blu-ray has a clear and compelling capacity advantage which is going to be very difficult to overcome. Yet another reason why HD DVD is simply "good enough", but no better.

I don't grasp at straws. I know that Apple uses their Bonjour technology that's based on Zeroconf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf


It's pure FUD to think that consumers don't know how to get things networked. Wireless networks are in homes all over the country. If Toshiba things there's a problem with getting their players networked them a service like Zeroconf allows them to add automatic discovery of network items. iTunes uses it to discover other libraries on your network and automatically links to them. The storage wouldn't be on the network that often because the chipsets are already including SATA ports.


The only reason why HD DVD owners haven't connected their players enmassed to the network is because there's little that awaits them today other than firmware downloads that don't come along often. You give them access to some content from the web and you'll see more people "Jack in". Frankly it's pretty pathetic that a Blu-ray fan needs to be a console or a $1500 BD player to get networking. Superior platform my arse.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t

This is really a stretch. First of all, the percentage of people who are likely to have a fairly sophisticated configuration supporting network attached storage is very, very small. Even getting people to attach a network is tough; asking them to configure storage on the network is nearly impossible. You also ignore whether network speeds will be sufficient (many people will use wifi; in practice wifi speeds are almost always much slower than required for streaming HD audio/video).


Finally, there's a good possibility that the percentage of Blu-ray owners who with working network connections will be higher than HD DVD owners even though network support is not mandatory for Blu-ray. Why? Because PS3 owners are far more likely than standalone owners to attach to the network, given all the value provided by a networked PS3.


Keep grasping at straws, but Blu-ray has a clear and compelling capacity advantage which is going to be very difficult to overcome. Yet another reason why HD DVD is simply "good enough", but no better.

Well, Talk, you personally started a survey that found 61% of HD DVD owners had their players connected and 19% had a internet connection nearby. Do you disagree that that was 80% of HD DVD owners then saying they had a ready network connection?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=703704


Well I don't think it would be that much of a stretch, in that a product could simply plug into the jack on HD DVD player and then into the network.


If you have ethernet speeds that could be plenty fast to move the content around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I ever believed that the natural progression of home players must be this:


First Generation: DVD players alone.

Second Generation: DVD+HDD.

Third Generation: HD-DVD+HDD.


The reason is that the most natural way of going into consumers minds isn´t broking the standard that already runs well, HD-DVD can be applied with less problems to current technology than BluRay and we have the advantage that all the features in HD-DVD must be supported.


And HD-DVD player with an huge HDD and Internet connection for things like IPTV is better than any Standalone BluRay Player. The problem that I see in the offline content industry is that a misleading idea of the industry made by a company could destroy the entire market.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Talk, I see you as being really defensive here.


I think Blu-ray can do this to, its just more of an issue because of the lack of this capability in the first generation products. HD DVD just makes it easier because of the mandatory nature of the network connection and persistent storage requirements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t /forum/post/0


This is really a stretch. First of all, the percentage of people who are likely to have a fairly sophisticated configuration supporting network attached storage is very, very small. Even getting people to attach a network is tough; asking them to configure storage on the network is nearly impossible.

Your own survey had over 61% of HD DVD players connected with another 19% ready to connect in the home. Granted that's first adopters but high speed access is commonplace. even more so with HDTV owners.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=703704


A plug and play box configured to seamlessly add additional storage that sits between the HD DVD player and the internet connection could be a user friendly solution. That's just a plugging a box into two Ethernet cables and a firmware update away. Not complex. Having a folder on the PC hard drive or network hard drive is just running a setup program. People do it from Google or Microsoft.com or Sony.com every day. I think you are exaggerating the complexity of the option. Remember this is a bonus additional storage model. I think a lot of people could figure it out if they had a home PC, even more so if it was a plug and play box.

Quote:
You also ignore whether network speeds will be sufficient (many people will use wifi; in practice wifi speeds are almost always much slower than required for streaming HD audio/video).

The content could be downloaded in advance through the internet and be available on the storage device or server. A lot of the bonus content would be shorter than the main feature or could be buffered using the HD DVD players mandatory storage capacity.


In any case, in a few years wireless speeds will also increase as the cost of network storage and hard drives and flash memory will go down.


If we are talking years before 100 GB Blu-ray discs are available or even if 50 GB discs are in common use, its fair to see what HD DVD may have in the future also to offset that future growth of Blu-ray. HD DVD's capacity will also grow in the future, except it will use networking and bandwidth and storage instead of physical optical storage capacity.

Quote:
Finally, there's a good possibility that the percentage of Blu-ray owners who with working network connections will be higher than HD DVD owners even though network support is not mandatory for Blu-ray. Why? Because PS3 owners are far more likely than standalone owners to attach to the network, given all the value provided by a networked PS3.

That might be short term for PS3 owners, but what about all the people that bought first generation Blu-ray players that don't have all the capabilities the future profiles will have? The BDA will have a choice of either throwing them under the bus (sorry guys, that's the risk of being a first adopter) and leaving them behind or sticking with a physical storage mechanism.

Quote:
Keep grasping at straws, but Blu-ray has a clear and compelling capacity advantage which is going to be very difficult to overcome. Yet another reason why HD DVD is simply "good enough", but no better.

Well thanks for telling me that I'm a deluded fool. I was hoping for a more nuanced response from you on how Blu-ray could also use future networking and bandwidth.


Instead you are telling me that these foreseeable advances don't matter. That seems to be like hoping against hope and closing your eyes to things you don't want to see happening.


I get the impression, you don't like the idea, because HD DVD indeed has an advantage here. I don't think having people use HD DVDs mandatory network capability to find a network storage device is a stretch.


How many people now use Vonage for their telephone service? If Microsoft can make Xbox Live work or automatic PC upgrades easy, in a few years they could make this work also. And here I think Microsoft as a software provider and Toshiba as a laptop maker will have an advantage over Sony in making this work.


I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow, its just that making those features mandatory in HD DVD makes it a lot easier for HD DVD to do it than Blu-ray.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lymzy /forum/post/0


Great post! I guess yes and no for this question. Yes for the updated trailer/commentary track/SD PiP stream. But the 15Mbps max S-EVOB secondary stream might push 1G/2G to the limit. Xbox360 could have a chance.


I think there is another question. Could released titles support new extras? My take is yes. Because 99% of the HD DVD is authored in advance mode. The disc will first look into the persistent storage for new HDi menu. Therefore the menu could always be updated to reflect new options such as new sound track or even managed copy button.


I remember Universal demo this ability on the Miami Vice this CES.


For bluray, I guess there is no chance to update the menu on none BD-J titles. If you couldn't update the menu, how could studio blend new stuff into existing main feature seamlessly?

I think I was told that HD DVD specs give the mandatory storage a seperate bandwidth allocation up to 15 megabits/second. that is I think that it doesn't affect the bandwidth coming off the disk.


Maybe Amirm or someone else can confirm that.


I saw existing titles having downloaded content while I was at CES.


I know that HD DVD can do this. I am unsure of Blu-ray 's capability to do it. I certainly don't think it would work on the Samsung or some of the existing players that do even have a Ethernet port.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison /forum/post/0


I don't grasp at straws. I know that Apple uses their Bonjour technology that's based on Zeroconf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf


It's pure FUD to think that consumers don't know how to get things networked. Wireless networks are in homes all over the country. If Toshiba things there's a problem with getting their players networked them a service like Zeroconf allows them to add automatic discovery of network items. iTunes uses it to discover other libraries on your network and automatically links to them. The storage wouldn't be on the network that often because the chipsets are already including SATA ports.


The only reason why HD DVD owners haven't connected their players enmassed to the network is because there's little that awaits them today other than firmware downloads that don't come along often. You give them access to some content from the web and you'll see more people "Jack in". Frankly it's pretty pathetic that a Blu-ray fan needs to be a console or a $1500 BD player to get networking. Superior platform my arse.

I agree with you completely here. I think that storage is going to get cheaper and cheaper and bandwith faster and faster.


Add that together with the studios still having the comfort that the main attraction was on a 30GB disc sold for a consumer friendly $19.99 point so there's no incentive to rip it and some plug and play hardware and you may have a wining strategy.


In a sense the HD DVD disc inserted in the player would become somewhat like the key to unlock or use the downloaded content. Just like the sharing of bookmarked clips with a freind who has to have already bought the same disc, you need to have a physical copy of the HD DVD disc in the drive to use the extra downloaded stuff store on your network.


And if you add another 15 mbs to the 30 mbs stream, that even nulifies some of the Blu-ray bandwidth advantage too.


This seems almost too good for HD DVD, what in the heck am I missing here?



Anyone have some answers to the questions I had at the end of my original post?
Quote:
Just a few questions I have on how this might work.


1) Does every HD DVD player on the market now (HD A1 XA1 A2 A20 XA2) have the capability to access storage on a home network? I think the answer is yes.


2) How would network transfer affect playback on the HD DVD ?


3)Is there enough of a mandatory buffer on the HD DVD devices to make playback on the HD DVD player from the storage location effective?


4)Would the content stored on the network location have to be fully transferred and stored on the HD DVD player?


5)How much storage is spec mandated for a HD DVD device?


Of course the only reason that this is a HD DVD advantage is that HD DVD has these capabilities in the specs. The only way that Blu-ray can do this is to throw some player owners over the side. They might do that but 50 GB might be enough to stop them.


Any other thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,993 Posts
Just a few questions I have on how this might work.


1) Does every HD DVD player on the market now (HD A1 XA1 A2 A20 XA2) have the capability to access storage on a home network? I think the answer is yes.
...I remember the HD DVD specification sheet said Network access would use common and open protocols.


2) How would network transfer affect playback on the HD DVD ?... I don't know I read that the data is syncronized with the content so in addition to buffering my guess is that clips would be stamped with some sort of timecode. It'd have to be really accurate.


3)Is there enough of a mandatory buffer on the HD DVD devices to make playback on the HD DVD player from the storage location effective? I believe we'll need HDD for this.


4)Would the content stored on the network location have to be fully transferred and stored on the HD DVD player? Good question.


5)How much storage is spec mandated for a HD DVD device? I believe the minimum amount of persistent storage is 8 minutes of 1080p24 video at 8Mbps. That doesn't preclude the use or larger RAM or moving to HDD though.


Of course the only reason that this is a HD DVD advantage is that HD DVD has these capabilities in the specs. The only way that Blu-ray can do this is to throw some player owners over the side. They might do that but 50 GB might be enough to stop them.


Any other thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosty /forum/post/0


1) Does every HD DVD player on the market now (HD A1 XA1 A2 A20 XA2) have the capability to access storage on a home network? I think the answer is yes.

If "capability" means do they have a network connection, then yes. But I would be more inclined to say no, as you need the ability to stream data from some device that publishes content using a protocol such as CIFS.

Quote:
2) How would network transfer affect playback on the HD DVD ?

It wouldn't. You just need sufficient bitrate to transfer the data. Any 100MB hard wire would be more than enough, and even 802.11g wireless would work in many cases.

Quote:
4)Would the content stored on the network location have to be fully transferred and stored on the HD DVD player?

No. XBox 360 can do streaming for example. Such streaming would be outside the HD-DVD spec though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

Quote:
If "capability" means do they have a network connection, then yes. But I would be more inclined to say no, as you need the ability to stream data from some device that publishes content using a protocol such as CIFS.

I actually think now that all HD DVD players to date have the capacity to access storage on a home network. Its an extension of the persistent storage requirement. To use it the 1st generation players may need a firmware update, but they have more than enough CPU horespower to manage it.


Just a small advantage of them being PC based tank like looking beasts, they can be flexible PC based players. They may boot up slow, but they still have plenty of flexability.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·

Quote:
How would network transfer affect playback on the HD DVD ?
Quote:
It wouldn't. You just need sufficient bitrate to transfer the data. Any 100MB hard wire would be more than enough, and even 802.11g wireless would work in many cases.

I also think that any 802.11g wireless would be more than required for streaming. 11b may not be enough but any newer wireless router should be enough, let alone what the standard three years from now would be.
 
1 - 20 of 189 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top