but I'll go ahead and reiterate this, most likely the studios claiming support for both formats will be joining the Blu-Ray camp exclusively
That is pointless speculation. Neither Warner nor Paramount have stated that they are moving to Blu Ray exclusively. I've always acknowledged that BR has better studio support but considering vast history to pool from I'm most concerned with cost. I think cost will generally trump superior technology.
Quote:
The question you have to ask yourself is "cheaper" for who? Cheaper for manufacturers? Who gives a crap if it is cheaper for the manufacturers?because you are under the assumption that more cost to the manufacturer = more cost to the end consumer
Does Apple cut you a break when their cost go up? If memory serves me correct they indeed raised prices when their component cost rose
Anyone seeking to product content will be eyeballing their costs. Have you ever had content produced yourself? I've assisted a musician friend in doing so and it's always "If I can move this many units my unit cost is $xx" large studios are no different. Retail markup is generally 3x-5x the cost of the goods. Pressing plants will negotiate down to the half penny (multiply a half penny by a billion..that's a chunk of change)
Quote:
Yay!, we have old disc/data structure for a proposed "next-generation" format. Doesn't sound very "next-generation" to me.
I think it make far more sense to keep the data structure and numerical aperture closer to RL DVD and utilize the Advanced Codecs for your improvement gains. However let us compare Blu Ray. Sony gives us a new format that
1. Initially required a Caddy
2. Requires special spincoat or film to prevent scratches from destroying disc.
3. Requires a more expensive lens assembly for backwards compatibility.
Now THAT sound like engineering for specs rather than developing a solution.
Quote:
Again, looking out for those poor manufacturers I see, they are just so in the red, I'm sure! We gotta enjoy the 1080i resolution to boot with this "next-generation" format. It's going to be "cheaper" all right.
Content providers that have to shell out a million plus for BD ROM production are simply going to pass those cost on to you once Sony stops subsidizing the discs. I'm for keeping my ducats in my bank account.
Quote:
If so, do share some links with this info
Think about it. BD-ROM has a .85 NA HD DVD has .65. Thus the laser on BD-ROM is closer to the surface. Now imagine what the laser assembly must look like. You have the blue diode protruding closer to the surface for BD and the red diode further back. Red diodes were recently added via engineering. HD DVD has had blue/red diodes in the same assembly by design from day one.
Quote:
Again, from a cost standpoint, this is a non-issue.Cost of making Blu-Ray discs will be the same as the cost to manufacture current DVDs
Ok you'd get laughed at saying that over at AVS. Spincoats are cheaper but blue laser tolerances are high enough that spincoats cause the edges to be thicker with coating and this causes playback issues. Film can be applied evenly across the surface but this cost more than spincoats naturally. Now ask yourself this. CD pressing plants have to yield on cycle. Thus if I'm pressing DVDs that simply require stamping and bonding of the two .6 mm plastic halves how is BD-ROM going to be the same to produce when it requires a spincoar or Film application? Yes boys and girls the correct answer is the disc takes longer which increases costs.
Dude Durabis was "scratched" months ago due to cost. It works but it's too expensive to apply. TDK will use it for their Recordable discs but I haven't read about one studio planning to use it for pre-recorded content.
Quote:
You forgot...
2. Durability
3. Ability to consolidate multiple movie discs on to one disc, thus freeing up you movie library clutter.
4. Capability of the format to go to 100 GB and 200 GB discs.
5. 1080p native resolution compared to HD-DVDs 1080i
2. I think this is open to debate still
3. A solution in seach of a problem.
4. Not in todays specification. DVD had a lot of features that never got used (automatic pan and scan) Sometimes the future ain't what it used to be. I'm not banking on pipe dreams for a format.
5. See the below pdf. Page 36
5.2.3 Video Output Resolution
[i]4) Players shall have the ability to maintain a fixed output scan rate and resolution regardless of changes in
the source content (e.g. 1080p to 480i).[i/]
Page 32
In the case of 24p source content, when the 3:2 pull down flag is used for 60 Hz region, picture level
encoding is performed on a frame-basis. In addition, such 24p elementary video streams can
be converted during content creation (authoring) to corresponding 50 Hz elementary video streams.
One sloppy writer created this misconception that HD DVD is 1080i. That's silly as 1080i would mean you'd have to store at 1080i/60 resolution. Movies will be stored at their native fps. 24p.
Don't get me wrong. I'm going to have a Blu Ray device. I just don't like people telling me what is better or worse without me taking a look and deciding for myself.
That pretty much sums up the HD-DVD format in a nutshell. We want a viable format that is as future-proof as possible and HD-DVD sure as hell isn't it. I'm tired of the do as little as possible and take the easy way out attitude of people like Lieberfarb. He was the one pushing for the red-laser BD-9 format because Warner wants to release most of their movies on it. It's all about cutting corners and providing customers with the least bang for their buck.
Come on guys. It looks like the first Columbia/Tristar movies will be MPEG2 Single Layer. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Blu Ray fans are fans because of the the "dream" that Sony has laid out in front of you. They came out with guns blazing talking about 4 layer discs and 200GB discs and you all jumped hook line and sinker in the standard geek tradition. Reality is the tolerances requirements will jump exponentially with each new layer so if 50GB discs are tough today a 4 layer disc is a ways off. Note that sometimes it makes financial sense to ship two or four 50GB sics in lieu of a 100GB or 200GB discs. We see this today with DVD. Rarely are multi disc sets shipped on DVD-18.
Blu Ray is rife with compromises and if HD DVD wasn't a competitor you'd have even less. Win lose or draw HD DVD has been good for everyone.
I said this in the very beginning that blu-ray would win and I still stand behind that. I consult to 10 different film studios for a living (the big 5) and everyone is going blu-ray. Period.
Sony's pitch is much better. I recently attented an "informational" seminar by Sony hosted on the studio lot to push their technologies (both hd-dvd and blu-ray have done this)
Here is why everyone is in Sony's camp, this is directly paraphrased from the rep.
Studio Exec: "You haven't released solid pricing on the discs to us, do you have exact numbers? So far HD-DVD camp has given very precise amounts, what is your plan?"
Sony Rep: "The truth of the matter is, the figures we've given you so far are estimates only for one reason. We plan to undercut HD-DVD pricing at all costs. Even though, we're offering more features for the money, we have decided that it's important to ensure customers get the best standard. Sony is even willing to sell the media at a loss to ensure the customers get the better format. When the time comes we will release pricing lower anything HD-DVD will offer you. You can quote me on that."
We talked about it more afterwards at length, but Sony is willing to put in WRITING that they will undercut the pricing of HD-DVD period. And that's for more space and better features.
Blu-Ray will win because it's going to come in playstations, and it's going to be cheepier than HD-DVD even if that means taking a price loss on the blu-ray players, and media. Sony is willing to loss profits to sell their standard. HD-DVD camp is not.
I say again, like i did LAST year. There IS no format war. blu-ray already won. Last year I offered to bet 5,000us on it. I will continue to offer anyone to bet me this amount.
I feel that I'm entrenched enough in the spec, and what's going on with the studios that I've got an "inside window" on the so-called "format wars"
I might have missed it in the discussion so far, but why is sony pushing to use mpeg2 and not 4 to start with?
MPEG2 is a larger but less complex format. Since single layer Blu-Ray discs can hold 25 GB they are choosing to use a high-bitrate codec and use all the disc's capacity. Why spend more money on H264 mastering when they have ample room on each disc.
Expect minimal extra features on the initial Blu-Ray discs, that is if we're lucky.
... sometimes it makes financial sense to ship two or four 50GB sics in lieu of a 100GB or 200GB discs. We see this today with DVD. Rarely are multi disc sets shipped on DVD-18.
There's tons of reasons studios put out loads of few-layer discs, including consumer preference for tangible goods. If you compare a box with 6 DVDs to one with 2 high-capacity DVDs, many consumers will think they're getting more with the 6 DVD package, even though the content is the same.
Personally I like Blu-Ray, not because of Sony's propaganda, but because if this is the last disc standard for distributed media I want it as capacious and flexible as possible. I feel HDDVD is more evolutionary than revolutionary and that 5 years from now when everyone needs more storage we'll be glad we went with the more forward thinking standard.
There's tons of reasons studios put out loads of few-layer discs, including consumer preference for tangible goods. If you compare a box with 6 DVDs to one with 2 high-capacity DVDs, many consumers will think they're getting more with the 6 DVD package, even though the content is the same
I agree. I really don't think having a series on one disc is that much of an issue for consumers. Plus with Managed Copy you could record your favorite shows to a server for quick access anytime you wanted.
Quote:
I feel HDDVD is more evolutionary than revolutionary and that 5 years from now when everyone needs more storage we'll be glad we went with the more forward thinking standard.
I disagree with this notion based on the trajectory of media regarding datarates. While we have more data to consume the actual container size of that data is shrinking relative to its quality.
5 years ago if you wanted lossless audio you recorded WAV/AIFF files and they took up a huge amount of space. Today with Apple Lossless, FLAC and other formats you actually have the same quality in a smaller package. Blu Ray's size advantage to me is superfluous because both formats do 8 hrs of HD video and I'd rather not have too much data on one disc that can be lost or destroyed.
The extra space certainly isn't worth me dealing with another two pieces of content DRM in BD+ and ROM Mark. I'm all for ending piracy but what happens when a chip goes on the fritz inside a Blu Ray player with 3 different types of content protection specifications? My 3yr old Onkyo DVD is already beginning to spit out unscratched discs.
These are electronics and I haven't seen a company yet that can guarantee that my device will perform to spec a few years later thus I do not wish to obsfuscate things with too many layers of complexity. Sadly I will not have a choice in this matter.
We talked about it more afterwards at length, but Sony is willing to put in WRITING that they will undercut the pricing of HD-DVD period. And that's for more space and better features.
Another thought: If Sony and Toshiba were to get involved in a protracted price war, I'd say Sony has the superior financial resources to outlast Toshiba. Toshiba simply isn't as big or successful as Sony. That's not taking into account the larger pool of big companies who've thrown their weight behind Blu-ray. The BDA is simply bigger and richer than the HD-DVD Promotion Group. That means even more financial and engineering resources to back Blu-ray, keep it going longer if necessary and push the price down faster. Like it or not, it's a juggernaut.
I think it make far more sense to keep the data structure and numerical aperture closer to RL DVD and utilize the Advanced Codecs for your improvement gains.
What if Apple had decided to just add on to OS 9 instead of starting from scratch with OS X? Same thing here. They realized that sometimes you need to make bold changes instead of clinging to the past.
Quote:
1. Initially required a Caddy
I sometimes wish CDs and DVDs came in a caddy. They would protect the disc, have room for decent cover art and serve as a storage case too. Oh well. People like shiny objects.
Quote:
Thus if I'm pressing DVDs that simply require stamping and bonding of the two .6 mm plastic halves how is BD-ROM going to be the same to produce when it requires a spincoar or Film application? Yes boys and girls the correct answer is the disc takes longer which increases costs.
I imagine adding a spincoat to a single Blu-Ray disc at the end of the line would be cheaper than merging disc halves from two lines and then bonding them together. So Blu-Ray would be the winner here.
Quote:
HD DVD has had blue/red diodes in the same assembly by design from day one.
HD-DVD originally used red lasers only providing a format frighteningly similar to WMV-HD discs.
Another thought: If Sony and Toshiba were to get involved in a protracted price war, I'd say Sony has the superior financial resources to outlast Toshiba. Toshiba simply isn't as big or successful as Sony. That's not taking into account the larger pool of big companies who've thrown their weight behind Blu-ray. The BDA is simply bigger and richer than the HD-DVD Promotion Group. That means even more financial and engineering resources to back Blu-ray, keep it going longer if necessary and push the price down faster. Like it or not, it's a juggernaut.
Exactly. Every big name manufacturer I can think of is making Blu-Ray players. Sony. Philips. Panasonic. Pioneer. JVC. Hitachi. Blu-Ray recorders as well. As for HD-DVD Toshiba is the only one making a player exclusively that I know of. A couple manufacturers are making both. Thomson (RCA) and samsung I believe. It's nice not to be locked into a single manufacturer.
I might have missed it in the discussion so far, but why is sony pushing to use mpeg2 and not 4 to start with?
MPEG2 is more mature in terms of encoding than MPEG4. More people are familiar with MPEG2 and the tools to work with it. The encoding process for MPEG4 is very time consuming and it takes a great deal of care to do it right adding to the production time. Since it is more complex it also takes a lot of computing power to decode. Even with a hardware decoding I saw artifacts in high-speed scenes on HD-DVD when there were none with Blu-Ray though the demos were of different material. It just couldn't keep up. The HD-DVD prototype also shut down repeatedly due to overheating. This was a while ago so I'm sure they have made progress but it shows what a pain in the ass MPEG4 can be to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the future but at the moment it's not necessarilly the best choice.
I imagine adding a spincoat to a single Blu-Ray disc at the end of the line would be cheaper than merging disc halves from two lines and then bonding them together. So Blu-Ray would be the winner here
Remember, you're "still" bonding two layers together to form a Blu Ray disc. One layer is 1.1mm thick the other is .1mm and then you must apply the spincoat or film. It will be invariably slower than simply bonding two halves. I've read a few reports from vetrans from the optical industry and not many share the viewpoint that blu ray will be cheaper for quite some time. However Sony is going to write big checks so that won't hurt partners.
Quote:
HD-DVD originally used red lasers only providing a format frighteningly similar to WMV-HD discs.
No, there was a red laser proposal out there that did use a moniker something like HD-DVD or DVD-HD or something liek that, but whether it was endorsed by the DVD forum, or actually developed past the vapour-ware stage, I don't know...
MPEG2 is more mature in terms of encoding than MPEG4. More people are familiar with MPEG2 and the tools to work with it. The encoding process for MPEG4 is very time consuming and it takes a great deal of care to do it right adding to the production time. Since it is more complex it also takes a lot of computing power to decode. Even with a hardware decoding I saw artifacts in high-speed scenes on HD-DVD when there were none with Blu-Ray though the demos were of different material. It just couldn't keep up. The HD-DVD prototype also shut down repeatedly due to overheating. This was a while ago so I'm sure they have made progress but it shows what a pain in the ass MPEG4 can be to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the future but at the moment it's not necessarilly the best choice.
That sucks - DirectTv is moving to mpeg4 (top 24 markets in the spring, the rest of the country in 2007).
No, when they first started out they intended to use red lasers exclusively to minimize costs. It was really little more than WMV-HD. It was Blu-Ray that was to use blue-violet lasers from the start.
That sucks - DirectTv is moving to mpeg4 (top 24 markets in the spring, the rest of the country in 2007).
I saw lots of digital artifacts on the MPEG4 channels. Don't know if it was the H20 or the transmission. The MPEG2 channels looked great though. They'll get it sorted out but MPEG4 will be a bumpier road, that's for sure.
No, there was a red laser proposal out there that did use a moniker something like HD-DVD or DVD-HD or something liek that, but whether it was endorsed by the DVD forum, or actually developed past the vapour-ware stage, I don't know...
It sounds similar to what Apple supports in DVD Studio Pro. From their DVDSP page:
"Showcase your HD content with integrated, scalable H.264 encoding that allows you to fit HD content on DVDs using existing drives and existing media."
Does Apple cut you a break when their cost go up? If memory serves me correct they indeed raised prices when their component cost rose
Nice that you provide an example of a company with a minority of market share so that it works with your warped logic. When you get down to the facts, BDA isn't just Sony. It is the MAJORITY of consumer electronic companies that make up the MAJORITY of the market. Economies of scale will dictate that no matter what HD-DVD will come out with cost wise for discs, Blu-Ray will undercut them because the majority of the market can afford to do so (see webmails post). Again they will recoup their costs. So again I'll say cost for the manufacturer in this instance is a non-issue. However, if you are still real concerned about how much the manufacturers save and thinking it will lead to higher Blu-Ray disc costs, so be it. We'll just have to see won't we.
I think it make far more sense to keep the data structure and numerical aperture closer to RL DVD and utilize the Advanced Codecs for your improvement gains. However let us compare Blu Ray. Sony gives us a new format that
1. Initially required a Caddy
2. Requires special spincoat or film to prevent scratches from destroying disc.
3. Requires a more expensive lens assembly for backwards compatibility.
For starters, Blu-Ray will be able to utilize the same advanced codects as HD-DVD (H.264 and VC1). As far as "improvement gains" are concerned, I'm not sure what you mean. "Improvement gains" as in more efficiently using disk space, both will, so HD-DVD has nothing better to offer. If you mean "improvement gains" by claiming that MGEG4 is better than MPEG2 from a codec standpoint, I think that is really still up to debate. Or, if by "improvement gains" you mean cost again, well I think I covered that in the initial paragraph, it is a non-issue.
Also,
1. Blu-Ray doesn't require a caddy now, welcome to the present. This point is irrevalent.
2. You're darn right because there is a lot more data as stake and it is about time the companies (Blu-Ray's are)do something about scratches and potential damage. HD-DVD was doing what concerning this?...Oh yeah they weren't. Good luck with your data on HD-DVD.
3. You are saying that it requires a more expensive lens assembly, but I have yet to see any article proving that that is fact. Let's just say, I'm not taking your word for it Redmond boy. Relax, I'm joking here, not about proof, but about the Redmond boy comment.
Think about it. BD-ROM has a .85 NA HD DVD has .65. Thus the laser on BD-ROM is closer to the surface. Now imagine what the laser assembly must look like. You have the blue diode protruding closer to the surface for BD and the red diode further back. Red diodes were recently added via engineering. HD DVD has had blue/red diodes in the same assembly by design from day one.
Again who cares if HD-DVD had red diodes since day one. Does that make them better now in the present? Nope, because Blu-Ray has backward compatibility too. I'm not disputing the fact that the fierce competion between the two formats have improved both specs on both sides, but when you look at the present, Blu-Ray is the better format.
Ok you'd get laughed at saying that over at AVS. Spincoats are cheaper but blue laser tolerances are high enough that spincoats cause the edges to be thicker with coating and this causes playback issues. Film can be applied evenly across the surface but this cost more than spincoats naturally. Now ask yourself this. CD pressing plants have to yield on cycle. Thus if I'm pressing DVDs that simply require stamping and bonding of the two .6 mm plastic halves how is BD-ROM going to be the same to produce when it requires a spincoar or Film application? Yes boys and girls the correct answer is the disc takes longer which increases costs.
Pahhhhhdon meeeeeeee, I guess we here at AppleInsider just aren't up to snuff. Or we don't get spoonfed information from Microsofties over at AVS, depending on you perception. To counter, economies of scale, and improvements in developmental facilities, easy. Read this article...
"Having multiple compnies involved with each step has contributed to process imprvements and cost efficiencies that bring the long-term cost of manufacturing BD-ROM discs in line with current DVD replication costs."
I guess I'll be the one laughing when Blu-Ray undercuts HD-DVD and HD-DVD meets its inevitable demise.
Dude Durabis was "scratched" months ago due to cost. It works but it's too expensive to apply. TDK will use it for their Recordable discs but I haven't read about one studio planning to use it for pre-recorded content.
Dude! Dude. Duuuuude. Durabis hasn't been scratched due to cost. Looky here, huuh, my gosh what is the date on this article? Speak of the devil, December 13th, 2005...
Seriously, the above is really a good article. Check it out everyone. Besides I didn't claim that Durabis will be used by all movie studios, I said either Durabis or some sort other "coating equivalent." Furthermore, I haven't seen any articles stating that they (studios) weren't using Durabis because of costs either. So, who knows, they (studios) still maybe planning on using it.
2. I think this is open to debate still
3. A solution in seach of a problem.
4. Not in todays specification. DVD had a lot of features that never got used (automatic pan and scan) Sometimes the future ain't what it used to be. I'm not banking on pipe dreams for a format.
5. See the below pdf. Page 36
2. What is there to debate? Blu-Ray will be offering extra coating protection of some kind and HD-DVD will be offering nothing. Your HD-DVD will scratch just as easily as a current DVD. End of Story.
3. This is debatable. As I for one like consolidation and would love to see the whole Matrix and Star Wars Trilogies on one disc. Most likely when the 100GB discs come out.
4. Speaking of 100GB discs that are most certainly not a "pipe dream"...
Notice in the article, it states that they have "working prototypes." Notice the date on this article, it was back in June. I think they are a lot farther than most people realize to making 100GB discs a reality quite soon.
5. Your link didn't work for me. As far as the 1080i resolution issue with HD-DVD, I've posted two articles in this thread and of the many articles related to this, I've read saying HD-DVD will only have 1080i resolution in their players. I believe one of them was from C\\Net not to long ago. Now, if they've since changed that, that would be news to me. So, in this case there just must be multiple slopply writers out there printing the exact same information, right?
Anyhow, the pipe dream is really the chances of HD-DVD winning in this format war. Right now, as another poster put it, Blu-Ray is a juggernaut. And, I'm afraid for your sake HD-DVD will be that flattened contender when the train (Blu-Ray) comes through.
Comments
but I'll go ahead and reiterate this, most likely the studios claiming support for both formats will be joining the Blu-Ray camp exclusively
That is pointless speculation. Neither Warner nor Paramount have stated that they are moving to Blu Ray exclusively. I've always acknowledged that BR has better studio support but considering vast history to pool from I'm most concerned with cost. I think cost will generally trump superior technology.
The question you have to ask yourself is "cheaper" for who? Cheaper for manufacturers? Who gives a crap if it is cheaper for the manufacturers?because you are under the assumption that more cost to the manufacturer = more cost to the end consumer
Does Apple cut you a break when their cost go up? If memory serves me correct they indeed raised prices when their component cost rose
Anyone seeking to product content will be eyeballing their costs. Have you ever had content produced yourself? I've assisted a musician friend in doing so and it's always "If I can move this many units my unit cost is $xx" large studios are no different. Retail markup is generally 3x-5x the cost of the goods. Pressing plants will negotiate down to the half penny (multiply a half penny by a billion..that's a chunk of change)
Yay!, we have old disc/data structure for a proposed "next-generation" format. Doesn't sound very "next-generation" to me.
I think it make far more sense to keep the data structure and numerical aperture closer to RL DVD and utilize the Advanced Codecs for your improvement gains. However let us compare Blu Ray. Sony gives us a new format that
1. Initially required a Caddy
2. Requires special spincoat or film to prevent scratches from destroying disc.
3. Requires a more expensive lens assembly for backwards compatibility.
Now THAT sound like engineering for specs rather than developing a solution.
Again, looking out for those poor manufacturers I see, they are just so in the red, I'm sure! We gotta enjoy the 1080i resolution to boot with this "next-generation" format. It's going to be "cheaper" all right.
Content providers that have to shell out a million plus for BD ROM production are simply going to pass those cost on to you once Sony stops subsidizing the discs. I'm for keeping my ducats in my bank account.
If so, do share some links with this info
Think about it. BD-ROM has a .85 NA HD DVD has .65. Thus the laser on BD-ROM is closer to the surface. Now imagine what the laser assembly must look like. You have the blue diode protruding closer to the surface for BD and the red diode further back. Red diodes were recently added via engineering. HD DVD has had blue/red diodes in the same assembly by design from day one.
Again, from a cost standpoint, this is a non-issue.Cost of making Blu-Ray discs will be the same as the cost to manufacture current DVDs
Ok you'd get laughed at saying that over at AVS. Spincoats are cheaper but blue laser tolerances are high enough that spincoats cause the edges to be thicker with coating and this causes playback issues. Film can be applied evenly across the surface but this cost more than spincoats naturally. Now ask yourself this. CD pressing plants have to yield on cycle. Thus if I'm pressing DVDs that simply require stamping and bonding of the two .6 mm plastic halves how is BD-ROM going to be the same to produce when it requires a spincoar or Film application? Yes boys and girls the correct answer is the disc takes longer which increases costs.
Dude Durabis was "scratched" months ago due to cost. It works but it's too expensive to apply. TDK will use it for their Recordable discs but I haven't read about one studio planning to use it for pre-recorded content.
You forgot...
2. Durability
3. Ability to consolidate multiple movie discs on to one disc, thus freeing up you movie library clutter.
4. Capability of the format to go to 100 GB and 200 GB discs.
5. 1080p native resolution compared to HD-DVDs 1080i
2. I think this is open to debate still
3. A solution in seach of a problem.
4. Not in todays specification. DVD had a lot of features that never got used (automatic pan and scan) Sometimes the future ain't what it used to be. I'm not banking on pipe dreams for a format.
5. See the below pdf. Page 36
5.2.3 Video Output Resolution
[i]4) Players shall have the ability to maintain a fixed output scan rate and resolution regardless of changes in
the source content (e.g. 1080p to 480i).[i/]
Page 32
In the case of 24p source content, when the 3:2 pull down flag is used for 60 Hz region, picture level
encoding is performed on a frame-basis. In addition, such 24p elementary video streams can
be converted during content creation (authoring) to corresponding 50 Hz elementary video streams.
One sloppy writer created this misconception that HD DVD is 1080i. That's silly as 1080i would mean you'd have to store at 1080i/60 resolution. Movies will be stored at their native fps. 24p.
http://www.dvdforum.org/images/Requi...n-July2005.pdf
Don't get me wrong. I'm going to have a Blu Ray device. I just don't like people telling me what is better or worse without me taking a look and deciding for myself.
Originally posted by 1984
That pretty much sums up the HD-DVD format in a nutshell. We want a viable format that is as future-proof as possible and HD-DVD sure as hell isn't it. I'm tired of the do as little as possible and take the easy way out attitude of people like Lieberfarb. He was the one pushing for the red-laser BD-9 format because Warner wants to release most of their movies on it. It's all about cutting corners and providing customers with the least bang for their buck.
Come on guys. It looks like the first Columbia/Tristar movies will be MPEG2 Single Layer. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Blu Ray fans are fans because of the the "dream" that Sony has laid out in front of you. They came out with guns blazing talking about 4 layer discs and 200GB discs and you all jumped hook line and sinker in the standard geek tradition. Reality is the tolerances requirements will jump exponentially with each new layer so if 50GB discs are tough today a 4 layer disc is a ways off. Note that sometimes it makes financial sense to ship two or four 50GB sics in lieu of a 100GB or 200GB discs. We see this today with DVD. Rarely are multi disc sets shipped on DVD-18.
Blu Ray is rife with compromises and if HD DVD wasn't a competitor you'd have even less. Win lose or draw HD DVD has been good for everyone.
Sony's pitch is much better. I recently attented an "informational" seminar by Sony hosted on the studio lot to push their technologies (both hd-dvd and blu-ray have done this)
Here is why everyone is in Sony's camp, this is directly paraphrased from the rep.
Studio Exec: "You haven't released solid pricing on the discs to us, do you have exact numbers? So far HD-DVD camp has given very precise amounts, what is your plan?"
Sony Rep: "The truth of the matter is, the figures we've given you so far are estimates only for one reason. We plan to undercut HD-DVD pricing at all costs. Even though, we're offering more features for the money, we have decided that it's important to ensure customers get the best standard. Sony is even willing to sell the media at a loss to ensure the customers get the better format. When the time comes we will release pricing lower anything HD-DVD will offer you. You can quote me on that."
We talked about it more afterwards at length, but Sony is willing to put in WRITING that they will undercut the pricing of HD-DVD period. And that's for more space and better features.
Blu-Ray will win because it's going to come in playstations, and it's going to be cheepier than HD-DVD even if that means taking a price loss on the blu-ray players, and media. Sony is willing to loss profits to sell their standard. HD-DVD camp is not.
I say again, like i did LAST year. There IS no format war. blu-ray already won. Last year I offered to bet 5,000us on it. I will continue to offer anyone to bet me this amount.
I feel that I'm entrenched enough in the spec, and what's going on with the studios that I've got an "inside window" on the so-called "format wars"
Originally posted by gsxrboy
I might have missed it in the discussion so far, but why is sony pushing to use mpeg2 and not 4 to start with?
They seem to be most familiar with MPEG2 and have a definite preference for it.
Sony has definitely out hustled and marketed HD DVD. Time will tell how long they can continue to subsidize their partners.
At any rate now that they've softened on a number of aspects I think that if they do in fact win I can live with the format.
Originally posted by gsxrboy
I might have missed it in the discussion so far, but why is sony pushing to use mpeg2 and not 4 to start with?
MPEG2 is a larger but less complex format. Since single layer Blu-Ray discs can hold 25 GB they are choosing to use a high-bitrate codec and use all the disc's capacity. Why spend more money on H264 mastering when they have ample room on each disc.
Expect minimal extra features on the initial Blu-Ray discs, that is if we're lucky.
Originally posted by hmurchison
... sometimes it makes financial sense to ship two or four 50GB sics in lieu of a 100GB or 200GB discs. We see this today with DVD. Rarely are multi disc sets shipped on DVD-18.
There's tons of reasons studios put out loads of few-layer discs, including consumer preference for tangible goods. If you compare a box with 6 DVDs to one with 2 high-capacity DVDs, many consumers will think they're getting more with the 6 DVD package, even though the content is the same.
Personally I like Blu-Ray, not because of Sony's propaganda, but because if this is the last disc standard for distributed media I want it as capacious and flexible as possible. I feel HDDVD is more evolutionary than revolutionary and that 5 years from now when everyone needs more storage we'll be glad we went with the more forward thinking standard.
There's tons of reasons studios put out loads of few-layer discs, including consumer preference for tangible goods. If you compare a box with 6 DVDs to one with 2 high-capacity DVDs, many consumers will think they're getting more with the 6 DVD package, even though the content is the same
I agree. I really don't think having a series on one disc is that much of an issue for consumers. Plus with Managed Copy you could record your favorite shows to a server for quick access anytime you wanted.
I feel HDDVD is more evolutionary than revolutionary and that 5 years from now when everyone needs more storage we'll be glad we went with the more forward thinking standard.
I disagree with this notion based on the trajectory of media regarding datarates. While we have more data to consume the actual container size of that data is shrinking relative to its quality.
5 years ago if you wanted lossless audio you recorded WAV/AIFF files and they took up a huge amount of space. Today with Apple Lossless, FLAC and other formats you actually have the same quality in a smaller package. Blu Ray's size advantage to me is superfluous because both formats do 8 hrs of HD video and I'd rather not have too much data on one disc that can be lost or destroyed.
The extra space certainly isn't worth me dealing with another two pieces of content DRM in BD+ and ROM Mark. I'm all for ending piracy but what happens when a chip goes on the fritz inside a Blu Ray player with 3 different types of content protection specifications? My 3yr old Onkyo DVD is already beginning to spit out unscratched discs.
These are electronics and I haven't seen a company yet that can guarantee that my device will perform to spec a few years later thus I do not wish to obsfuscate things with too many layers of complexity. Sadly I will not have a choice in this matter.
Originally posted by webmail
We talked about it more afterwards at length, but Sony is willing to put in WRITING that they will undercut the pricing of HD-DVD period. And that's for more space and better features.
Another thought: If Sony and Toshiba were to get involved in a protracted price war, I'd say Sony has the superior financial resources to outlast Toshiba. Toshiba simply isn't as big or successful as Sony. That's not taking into account the larger pool of big companies who've thrown their weight behind Blu-ray. The BDA is simply bigger and richer than the HD-DVD Promotion Group. That means even more financial and engineering resources to back Blu-ray, keep it going longer if necessary and push the price down faster. Like it or not, it's a juggernaut.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think it make far more sense to keep the data structure and numerical aperture closer to RL DVD and utilize the Advanced Codecs for your improvement gains.
What if Apple had decided to just add on to OS 9 instead of starting from scratch with OS X? Same thing here. They realized that sometimes you need to make bold changes instead of clinging to the past.
1. Initially required a Caddy
I sometimes wish CDs and DVDs came in a caddy. They would protect the disc, have room for decent cover art and serve as a storage case too. Oh well. People like shiny objects.
Thus if I'm pressing DVDs that simply require stamping and bonding of the two .6 mm plastic halves how is BD-ROM going to be the same to produce when it requires a spincoar or Film application? Yes boys and girls the correct answer is the disc takes longer which increases costs.
I imagine adding a spincoat to a single Blu-Ray disc at the end of the line would be cheaper than merging disc halves from two lines and then bonding them together. So Blu-Ray would be the winner here.
HD DVD has had blue/red diodes in the same assembly by design from day one.
HD-DVD originally used red lasers only providing a format frighteningly similar to WMV-HD discs.
Originally posted by Kolchak
Another thought: If Sony and Toshiba were to get involved in a protracted price war, I'd say Sony has the superior financial resources to outlast Toshiba. Toshiba simply isn't as big or successful as Sony. That's not taking into account the larger pool of big companies who've thrown their weight behind Blu-ray. The BDA is simply bigger and richer than the HD-DVD Promotion Group. That means even more financial and engineering resources to back Blu-ray, keep it going longer if necessary and push the price down faster. Like it or not, it's a juggernaut.
Exactly. Every big name manufacturer I can think of is making Blu-Ray players. Sony. Philips. Panasonic. Pioneer. JVC. Hitachi. Blu-Ray recorders as well. As for HD-DVD Toshiba is the only one making a player exclusively that I know of. A couple manufacturers are making both. Thomson (RCA) and samsung I believe. It's nice not to be locked into a single manufacturer.
Originally posted by gsxrboy
I might have missed it in the discussion so far, but why is sony pushing to use mpeg2 and not 4 to start with?
MPEG2 is more mature in terms of encoding than MPEG4. More people are familiar with MPEG2 and the tools to work with it. The encoding process for MPEG4 is very time consuming and it takes a great deal of care to do it right adding to the production time. Since it is more complex it also takes a lot of computing power to decode. Even with a hardware decoding I saw artifacts in high-speed scenes on HD-DVD when there were none with Blu-Ray though the demos were of different material. It just couldn't keep up. The HD-DVD prototype also shut down repeatedly due to overheating. This was a while ago so I'm sure they have made progress but it shows what a pain in the ass MPEG4 can be to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the future but at the moment it's not necessarilly the best choice.
I imagine adding a spincoat to a single Blu-Ray disc at the end of the line would be cheaper than merging disc halves from two lines and then bonding them together. So Blu-Ray would be the winner here
Remember, you're "still" bonding two layers together to form a Blu Ray disc. One layer is 1.1mm thick the other is .1mm and then you must apply the spincoat or film. It will be invariably slower than simply bonding two halves. I've read a few reports from vetrans from the optical industry and not many share the viewpoint that blu ray will be cheaper for quite some time. However Sony is going to write big checks so that won't hurt partners.
HD-DVD originally used red lasers only providing a format frighteningly similar to WMV-HD discs.
HD DVD has been Blue Laser from the start
Originally posted by 1984
MPEG2 is more mature in terms of encoding than MPEG4. More people are familiar with MPEG2 and the tools to work with it. The encoding process for MPEG4 is very time consuming and it takes a great deal of care to do it right adding to the production time. Since it is more complex it also takes a lot of computing power to decode. Even with a hardware decoding I saw artifacts in high-speed scenes on HD-DVD when there were none with Blu-Ray though the demos were of different material. It just couldn't keep up. The HD-DVD prototype also shut down repeatedly due to overheating. This was a while ago so I'm sure they have made progress but it shows what a pain in the ass MPEG4 can be to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the future but at the moment it's not necessarilly the best choice.
That sucks - DirectTv is moving to mpeg4 (top 24 markets in the spring, the rest of the country in 2007).
Originally posted by hmurchison
HD DVD has been Blue Laser from the start
No, when they first started out they intended to use red lasers exclusively to minimize costs. It was really little more than WMV-HD. It was Blu-Ray that was to use blue-violet lasers from the start.
Originally posted by e1618978
That sucks - DirectTv is moving to mpeg4 (top 24 markets in the spring, the rest of the country in 2007).
I saw lots of digital artifacts on the MPEG4 channels. Don't know if it was the H20 or the transmission. The MPEG2 channels looked great though. They'll get it sorted out but MPEG4 will be a bumpier road, that's for sure.
Originally posted by Matsu
No, there was a red laser proposal out there that did use a moniker something like HD-DVD or DVD-HD or something liek that, but whether it was endorsed by the DVD forum, or actually developed past the vapour-ware stage, I don't know...
It sounds similar to what Apple supports in DVD Studio Pro. From their DVDSP page:
"Showcase your HD content with integrated, scalable H.264 encoding that allows you to fit HD content on DVDs using existing drives and existing media."
Nice that you provide an example of a company with a minority of market share so that it works with your warped logic. When you get down to the facts, BDA isn't just Sony. It is the MAJORITY of consumer electronic companies that make up the MAJORITY of the market. Economies of scale will dictate that no matter what HD-DVD will come out with cost wise for discs, Blu-Ray will undercut them because the majority of the market can afford to do so (see webmails post). Again they will recoup their costs. So again I'll say cost for the manufacturer in this instance is a non-issue. However, if you are still real concerned about how much the manufacturers save and thinking it will lead to higher Blu-Ray disc costs, so be it. We'll just have to see won't we.
I think it make far more sense to keep the data structure and numerical aperture closer to RL DVD and utilize the Advanced Codecs for your improvement gains. However let us compare Blu Ray. Sony gives us a new format that
1. Initially required a Caddy
2. Requires special spincoat or film to prevent scratches from destroying disc.
3. Requires a more expensive lens assembly for backwards compatibility.
For starters, Blu-Ray will be able to utilize the same advanced codects as HD-DVD (H.264 and VC1). As far as "improvement gains" are concerned, I'm not sure what you mean. "Improvement gains" as in more efficiently using disk space, both will, so HD-DVD has nothing better to offer. If you mean "improvement gains" by claiming that MGEG4 is better than MPEG2 from a codec standpoint, I think that is really still up to debate. Or, if by "improvement gains" you mean cost again, well I think I covered that in the initial paragraph, it is a non-issue.
Also,
1. Blu-Ray doesn't require a caddy now, welcome to the present. This point is irrevalent.
2. You're darn right because there is a lot more data as stake and it is about time the companies (Blu-Ray's are)do something about scratches and potential damage. HD-DVD was doing what concerning this?...Oh yeah they weren't. Good luck with your data on HD-DVD.
3. You are saying that it requires a more expensive lens assembly, but I have yet to see any article proving that that is fact. Let's just say, I'm not taking your word for it Redmond boy.
Think about it. BD-ROM has a .85 NA HD DVD has .65. Thus the laser on BD-ROM is closer to the surface. Now imagine what the laser assembly must look like. You have the blue diode protruding closer to the surface for BD and the red diode further back. Red diodes were recently added via engineering. HD DVD has had blue/red diodes in the same assembly by design from day one.
Again who cares if HD-DVD had red diodes since day one. Does that make them better now in the present? Nope, because Blu-Ray has backward compatibility too. I'm not disputing the fact that the fierce competion between the two formats have improved both specs on both sides, but when you look at the present, Blu-Ray is the better format.
Ok you'd get laughed at saying that over at AVS. Spincoats are cheaper but blue laser tolerances are high enough that spincoats cause the edges to be thicker with coating and this causes playback issues. Film can be applied evenly across the surface but this cost more than spincoats naturally. Now ask yourself this. CD pressing plants have to yield on cycle. Thus if I'm pressing DVDs that simply require stamping and bonding of the two .6 mm plastic halves how is BD-ROM going to be the same to produce when it requires a spincoar or Film application? Yes boys and girls the correct answer is the disc takes longer which increases costs.
Pahhhhhdon meeeeeeee, I guess we here at AppleInsider just aren't up to snuff. Or we don't get spoonfed information from Microsofties over at AVS, depending on you perception. To counter, economies of scale, and improvements in developmental facilities, easy. Read this article...
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/do...0525-12993.pdf
Note the first paragraph...
"Having multiple compnies involved with each step has contributed to process imprvements and cost efficiencies that bring the long-term cost of manufacturing BD-ROM discs in line with current DVD replication costs."
I guess I'll be the one laughing when Blu-Ray undercuts HD-DVD and HD-DVD meets its inevitable demise.
Dude Durabis was "scratched" months ago due to cost. It works but it's too expensive to apply. TDK will use it for their Recordable discs but I haven't read about one studio planning to use it for pre-recorded content.
Dude! Dude. Duuuuude. Durabis hasn't been scratched due to cost. Looky here, huuh, my gosh what is the date on this article? Speak of the devil, December 13th, 2005...
http://www.tdk.co.jp/teaah01/aah17200.htm
Seriously, the above is really a good article. Check it out everyone. Besides I didn't claim that Durabis will be used by all movie studios, I said either Durabis or some sort other "coating equivalent." Furthermore, I haven't seen any articles stating that they (studios) weren't using Durabis because of costs either. So, who knows, they (studios) still maybe planning on using it.
2. I think this is open to debate still
3. A solution in seach of a problem.
4. Not in todays specification. DVD had a lot of features that never got used (automatic pan and scan) Sometimes the future ain't what it used to be. I'm not banking on pipe dreams for a format.
5. See the below pdf. Page 36
2. What is there to debate? Blu-Ray will be offering extra coating protection of some kind and HD-DVD will be offering nothing. Your HD-DVD will scratch just as easily as a current DVD. End of Story.
3. This is debatable. As I for one like consolidation and would love to see the whole Matrix and Star Wars Trilogies on one disc. Most likely when the 100GB discs come out.
4. Speaking of 100GB discs that are most certainly not a "pipe dream"...
http://www.tdk.com/tecpress/20050606_100gbluelaser.html
Notice in the article, it states that they have "working prototypes." Notice the date on this article, it was back in June. I think they are a lot farther than most people realize to making 100GB discs a reality quite soon.
5. Your link didn't work for me. As far as the 1080i resolution issue with HD-DVD, I've posted two articles in this thread and of the many articles related to this, I've read saying HD-DVD will only have 1080i resolution in their players. I believe one of them was from C\\Net not to long ago. Now, if they've since changed that, that would be news to me. So, in this case there just must be multiple slopply writers out there printing the exact same information, right?
Anyhow, the pipe dream is really the chances of HD-DVD winning in this format war. Right now, as another poster put it, Blu-Ray is a juggernaut. And, I'm afraid for your sake HD-DVD will be that flattened contender when the train (Blu-Ray) comes through.