Do you plan on upgrading to the new HD formats when they arrive? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Do you plan on upgrading to the new HD formats when they arrive?



Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-11-2005, 04:28 PM
The more information I get about HD-DVD and BluRay disc the more they both intrigue me. When you look at the supporters of each format, you can see this is going to be a real battle that perhaps no one will win(including the consumer). The more informed I am, the more I am pushed to support BluRay. Why? First it's storage capacity on disc is higher which mean more content, or uncompressed lossless content. Secondly it's ability to grow as a fomat(extra layers mean more storage space). And lastly, it is backwards compatible with current DVD standards.

The fly in the ointment boils down to this. You have computer companies supporting BluRay along with three movie studios. HD DVD has four movie studios and also has support from a few electronic manufacturers. Aside from Sony, Columbia, and MGM neither format has exclusive studio support, and many studio's are opting to support both.

Purely from a technical standpoint BluRay wins hands down. But that will not translate into consumer success as Betamax owner know very well. HD DVD by name sake has better brand recognition(DVD), and is positioning itself as evolutionary as opposed to BluRay's revolutionary.

At this point I am behind BluRay with a caveat. I will not be a early adopter like I was for D-VHS, which turned out to be a green herring. I have amassed over 1100 DVD's(blockbuster movies and twenty five years of drum and bugle corps legacy DVD's) and I have no desired to replace them. I will stop buying them when BluRay hits, and that is another problem for the studio's. What if millions of consumers do exactly the same thing. That will present a huge problem for the revenue stream of the major studio's. Personally I cannot see how the introduction of these new formats will benefit the studio unless they support them. Either way its a chance in darkness for them. Universal players are of no use in this instance because both formats are video formats, and studio will not created to different inventories just to support both formats.

IMO, it is too early to introduce this technology. DVD hasn't been on the market but 8 years, and already we are seeing the beginnings of its turnover. Laserdisc and VHS enjoyed a longer life than this format. DVD like the laserdisc and VHS will die a very slow death(if at all) if either of the two formats does gain a foothold into the market.

I am definately taking a wait and see attitude even though I fully support BluRay

Okay, that is all. Talk amoungst yourselves

Smokey
03-11-2005, 04:51 PM
And lastly, [Blueray] is backwards compatible with current DVD standards.

Are you sure about this?

From what I have read, HD-DVD will be backward compatible with current DVDs, but Blueray won't be since it uses blue laser instead of red which current DVD player uses.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-11-2005, 05:06 PM
Are you sure about this?

From what I have read, HD-DVD will be backward compatible with current DVDs, but Blueray won't be since it uses blue laser instead of red which current DVD player uses.

Smoke,
Both use blue laser to read the data. And yes several manufacturer have product in developement that are backwards compatible with DVD. I think that is important if BluRay wants to become the format of choice.

Smokey
03-11-2005, 06:09 PM
OK, thanks TT

I must agree with you that Blueray might have upper hand here with higher storage capability. Looks like DVD-HD will only hold 25 gigabytes storage, while Blue-Ray discs have more storage capacity--50 gigabytes (and upgradeable to 200 GB).

AS far as which format will survive might also depend on price of each format's disc/player :)

paul_pci
03-11-2005, 06:45 PM
I share many of your sentiments and will concur, in theory at least, as I don't even currently own a HD monitor, that what will be most attractive to me is a unit that is backward compatible to my less than 1100 DVD collection. But given the fact that people who currently enjoy HD programming note that it ruins them for regular broadcasts, I think these new formats will be very enticing.

risabet
03-11-2005, 06:46 PM
OK, thanks TT

I must agree with you that Blueray might have upper hand here with higher storage capability. Looks like DVD-HD will only hold 25 gigabytes storage, while Blue-Ray discs have more storage capacity--50 gigabytes (and upgradeable to 200 GB).

AS far as which format will survive might also depend on price of each format's disc/player :)

VHS won the format wars based on its longer recording time, though in a side by side comparison Beta had a better picture. Hope this won't be the case with these formats.

I won't be buying either until they get it sorted out. Early adopters oft times get screwed.

Woochifer
03-11-2005, 07:13 PM
One thing at a time. I still need to get a HDTV before I'm even in the game for one of the new video formats. And I think that's the biggest hurdle in convincing people on the merits of the new video formats. Having a format war from the get go is not a good sign.

I think some another problem that might get ugly is with how analog video signals get handled. My understanding is that the studios are pushing big time for the full HD resolution to ONLY output through a copy protected digital output such as HDMI. We won't know how it plays out until the first production players hit the street, but the pressure's on to limit the analog component video output to 480p resolution -- the SAME resolution as current DVDs! Problem with this limitation is that it basically forces consumers who bought their HDTVs as recently as last year to buy yet another HDTV simply because the model they bought lacks digital video inputs.

At least, the manufacturers backed off from their previous threat to make the new HD video players incompatible with DVDs. All in all, I think that if Blu-ray or HD-DVD succeed, it will be in spite of the decisions that have been made thus far.

I posted a similar topic about three years ago, but I think it's every bit as valid now. On that thread, I stated that DVD came out before the technology was ready, and very well might have locked us into an inferior format for decades to come. At that time, we already knew that the HD broadcast formats would be 720p or 1080i, yet the DVD was specified around 480i resolution (my understanding is that progressive scan was added later). If all of the development resources that went into DVD instead went into developing a HD disc format instead, maybe we'd have a single HD video disc standard by now. It might have pushed the introduction back by a few years, but at least we'd have something that's consistent with broadcast resolution.

Obviously, the DVD was intended to be an interim format until HD took hold, but with the rapidity of its adoption and subsequent commodification, and how thoroughly it transformed how people buy/rent videos, I think the format is more entrenched than the manufacturers would like to believe. Despite huge advances in digital audio, we're still stuck with 1979-vintage technology in the CD. We very well might be saying the same thing years from now about how the entrenched position of the DVD format has locked us into an inferior video standard.

As far as Blu-ray vs HD-DVD goes, I'm probably going to wait it out. The momentum for the two camps seems to shift every other week. The studios have pretty much divided up into two camps, neither of which has a decided advantage over the other. On the PC side though, I think Blu-ray has started to inch ahead, and Apple's announcement that they would support Blu-ray is another push in their favor.

Another reason for waiting is that the DD+ and DTS-HD decoders will probably won't be readily available at an affordable price for a while yet. For me, I see too many things unsettled about this transition to be an early adopter.

topspeed
03-11-2005, 09:03 PM
OK, as I'm becoming enlightened to the the video side of HT, I've learned about "true HD" which appears to be 1080p. Currently, there are only a handful of sets that can handle this resolution and... *surprise*... they ain't cheap. There are purported to be more and more sets with 1080p resolution hitting the market later this year so my question is; Is Blu-Ray and HD-DVD in 1080p? Will I be able to play them on a 720p set or 1080i, which I understand is actually worse than 720p? While I would rather not wait (or pay the high price of) first gen 1080p sets, I suppose I can make due if it would be worth it. Like Wooch, I doubt I'll get into the format wars at first, but it would be nice to have the capability if one or both really do take off. What I don't want to do is spend $4K on a set only to find it obsolete in a couple of years. THAT would make a very unhappy camper :mad:.

Geoffcin
03-11-2005, 09:32 PM
The more information I get about HD-DVD and BluRay disc the more they both intrigue me. When you look at the supporters of each format, you can see this is going to be a real battle that perhaps no one will win(including the consumer). The more informed I am, the more I am pushed to support BluRay. Why? First it's storage capacity on disc is higher which mean more content, or uncompressed lossless content. Secondly it's ability to grow as a fomat(extra layers mean more storage space). And lastly, it is backwards compatible with current DVD standards.

The fly in the ointment boils down to this. You have computer companies supporting BluRay along with three movie studios. HD DVD has four movie studios and also has support from a few electronic manufacturers. Aside from Sony, Columbia, and MGM neither format has exclusive studio support, and many studio's are opting to support both.

Purely from a technical standpoint BluRay wins hands down. But that will not translate into consumer success as Betamax owner know very well. HD DVD by name sake has better brand recognition(DVD), and is positioning itself as evolutionary as opposed to BluRay's revolutionary.

At this point I am behind BluRay with a caveat. I will not be a early adopter like I was for D-VHS, which turned out to be a green herring. I have amassed over 1100 DVD's(blockbuster movies and twenty five years of drum and bugle corps legacy DVD's) and I have no desired to replace them. I will stop buying them when BluRay hits, and that is another problem for the studio's. What if millions of consumers do exactly the same thing. That will present a huge problem for the revenue stream of the major studio's. Personally I cannot see how the introduction of these new formats will benefit the studio unless they support them. Either way its a chance in darkness for them. Universal players are of no use in this instance because both formats are video formats, and studio will not created to different inventories just to support both formats.

IMO, it is too early to introduce this technology. DVD hasn't been on the market but 8 years, and already we are seeing the beginnings of its turnover. Laserdisc and VHS enjoyed a longer life than this format. DVD like the laserdisc and VHS will die a very slow death(if at all) if either of the two formats does gain a foothold into the market.

I am definately taking a wait and see attitude even though I fully support BluRay

Okay, that is all. Talk amoungst yourselves


One of that major reasons is as you've noted; DVD @ 8 years old is just entering it's prime.

Also, and you probably know the numbers better than me, only about 10% of TV sets in housholds right now are capable of taking advantage of the higher rez of these newer formats, where as over 90% of TVs sold now can take advantage of DVD's 480p.

Progressive players are dirt cheap now, and built pretty well to boot. If joe consumer spent $150 on a cheap multiplayer he will probably get 4-6 years out of it or more. Whe he goes to replace it you can bet that if there's a BlueRay player that's $800 to $1k, he's going to skip over it, especially if the Hi-Rez software is more expensive than DVD.

In my view, especially after looking at the debacle that is High-Rez audio, both BlueRay, and HD-DVD are going to be very limited niche players just like DVD-Audio & SACD.

markw
03-12-2005, 05:40 AM
Gee, I miss the old days where vinyl ruled fairly well untouched (save for improvments) from the 50's to the early 80's. Then CD's toppled them and remained fairly well on top until, well, actually they still are. DVD-Audio and SACD are still trying to get a foothold and if Joe Sixpack has any say, it ain't gonna happen.

And, let's face it, Joe Sixpack and his Wal-Mart spending habits determine what's here for the long haul and what falls by the wayside into the land of niche markets.

It's like when he turned away from vinyl and bought into redbook CD. He didn't go CD for the sound so much as other easilty quantifiable areas. It was the convenience and elimination of noise. The sound was secondary.

Too many people have DVD's now and are more than satisfied with it. I'll wait until one of these new formats becomes a standard and the hardware is plentiful, cheap and proven and the softwars is likewise.

kexodusc
03-12-2005, 05:59 AM
I have no doubt that hi-rez audio and HD video formats will thrive in due time. I think we (by we I mean the a/v buffs that are probably more into this stuff than Joe Consumer) have unrealistic expectations for rate of adoption.

Home audio/video technology has traditionally been adopted at a very much slower pace than computer technology. Yet this seems to be the standard it is held against.
As Wooch pointed out...the CD came out in what, very early 1980's and took over 10 years to become the audio standard. DVD took several years to overthrow VHS as the video standard as well.

It's just way too early to write off either SACD or DVD-A as an audio medium...give it 5 more years, and I'm sure we'll have at least a viable alternative to the CD. (though it might not be either of these, or it might be both, who knows?) If the labels wisen up and start "dual-disc-ing" every new release, people are gonna want to take advantage the new product they're paying a premium for. Marketing isn't just about satisfying consumer needs, it's about creating them too! Given the amounts of cash companies have invested into these formats, I'm fairly confident they aren't just going to walk away from them.

The same can be said for these video formats too...the trick is finding the right time to really push these to the consumer. I didn't buy my first DVD player until 2000. And cheapskate that I am, I wish I waited until 2001 when it became 50% cheaper!!! I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this boat. The HT market has really boomed in the last 5 years, and I have no doubt that a few years down the road, people will be ready for the next latest and greatest format. It's just not going to happen overnight.

Perhaps someone can help me here: If 1080i or 1080p are the absolute best video formats, and losless DTS hi-rez audio format is the standard on these new formats, won't HD-DVD and BluRay both have more than enough storage capacity to deliver the same performance anyway? That is, won't the extra storage be a moot point for BluRay? Even if it's not, will the extra capability translate into a real world performance benefit, or will it be negligible, despite boasting superior numbers?

If so, then I feel Smokey is right, the price of the players, and the availability of titles will determine the victor.

edtyct
03-12-2005, 07:30 AM
kexo,

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, I don't think, is that the HD-DVD is easier to manufacture. It can use basically the same platform that already exists. This is a major advantage, even if it doesn't ultimately kill the competition. It's the reason why HD-DVD players will emerge first.

Someone else asked a question about 1080p. A slew of new displays has entered the market as 1080p-capable, but it's important to note that none of them is able to accept a 1080p signal through an input, only to scale their data to 1920x1080p, but virtually all HD displays on the market have to scale signals to their native resolution. Eventually displays will be able to input 1080p, but the broadcasters will be at either 720p or 1080i for the foreseeable future. Another point to remember is that unless you're going to view within a certain distance on a particular screen size (which will have to reach some minimum height and width just to fit so many pixels), 1920x1080p will not look any better than lower HD resolutions. Don't get me wrong; the improvement is worth noting. However, beyond a certain distance (relative to a particular screen size), the miniscule size of the pixels makes it impossible for the eye to appreciate the added detail. If you have the room and the cash, 1080p will undoubtedly pay dividends; many people, however, will not benefit. It's a drag sitting too close to a large screen just to squeeze out a few pixels (most people will lose interest after the initial novelty), and knocking down a few walls to put up a huge screen just for the sake of 1080p is hardly a viable strategy for most of us. This is one upgrade that can be taken with a grain of salt.

I think that the extra storage capacity is a moot point for most viewers, who'll mostly be interested in getting their DVDs and sound at a higher resolution. The ability to store more data will not impact the primary reason that consumers will buy either format. Technical archivists will find Blu-Ray's storage capacity valuable, but who among us wants to watch extras for a week and a half just because they will fit?

One more point: The original impetus for DVI and HDMI was the studios' desire to protect content, the same move that we have witnessed over the years with other formats. But it remains to be seen whether they are able to deny those with only analog connections the HD programming (#) that they spent hard-earned money to enjoy. A nasty legal battle is falling into place. At any rate, I wouldn't expect the studios to be able to pull the plug on analog at their impulse without serious opposition--not to imply that they won't initiate other means to make life hard for those who pose a threat to them. It's about time these old fogeys got creative about protecting their interests and started looking for ways to adapt to, rather than scuttle, new technologies out of the chute. So far, they have been able to parlay these moments of terror into increased revenue for themselves without impaing the "rights" of others (I know there's a lot more to be said on this subject), and I'm sure that a little ingenuity will help them this time as well. Standing in the way of progress won't cut it, for anyone.

I'll probably adopt one of the new DVD (#) formats fairly early, depending on how the war plays out (I'm one of those people who can't seem to go back to SD easily after living with HD--although, Mr. Peabody notwithstanding, I have found my upscaled DVDs to 720p to be a much-appreciated way to spend the interim). Some of my willingness to buy either format will depend on the titles offered. Few of the announced titles from the Toshiba (#) side flip my skirt at this point; I have no need to jump into the fray with my eyes closed.

Ed

kexodusc
03-12-2005, 09:43 AM
Ed,

Well said...I just read an article in a magazine this AM at my local vet clinic that basically said that HD-DVD can be produced at an added cost of less than 10%, with existing facilities.
The BluRay facilities would require massive initial capital investments in the area of hundreds of millions extra to meet capacity should it be the dominant format.
This is likely to be the single biggest obstacle.
2nd, the article stated that at max resolution, with the best audio available, an HD-DVD would still be able to hold 6 hours worth of video per disc. This does seem to make the BluRay option less attractive. The HD-DVD rep was quoted along the lines of saying "this isn't a bigger = better race" but rather, "what's the easiest, and most cost effective method of delivering an equivalent performing product that is backwards compatible to the consumer?"
In my ignorance (I've had an HDTV for about 4 days now) this seems to make sense, but then there's the fact that many significant players have backed BluRay.
The article predicts an agreement will be made between the two groups, to benefit everyone.
Maybe that's the best option?

edtyct
03-12-2005, 10:01 AM
At this point, peaceful agreement, which would undoubtedly be the best option, seems like a fantasy, since both sides have dug in their heals for a fight. We should also be aware that none of the major players, including many who have pledged allegiance to either side on the ground floor, will necessarily stiff the other format. The only company that stands to remain firmly in one camp is Sony (#), which has all of Columbia and apparently MGM to dedicate to BluRay. As an old geezer, I find the propsect of the MGM library in HD very attractive, though Universal, Warners, and Paramount also have a history of great classic titles. Kexo, what's the magazine you were reading?

Ed

kexodusc
03-12-2005, 12:28 PM
It wasn't a hi-fi mag, it was either MacLean's (a popular business mag in Canada) or Report on Business (self explanatory)...Both were recent issues.
Apparently Toshiba is pretty grounded in HD-DVD (being among the largest contributers to the original DVD format and HD-DVD). Dreamworks has yet to declare any endorsement, as does 20th Century Fox, though the article did say bother were being wooed heavily by BluRay (and I imagine the HD-DVD camp as well).
Eventually someone like Blockbuster or Walmart should step in and let their opinions be known...I'm sure it would be a logistic nightmare having to order 1 film in 2 formats (if the Studios even decide to be that flexible), not to mention cater to existing DVD users, etc.
I just checked, Sound & Vision has an article in the March 2005 issue that echoes many of the same points...good read.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-12-2005, 12:33 PM
kexo,

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, I don't think, is that the HD-DVD is easier to manufacture. It can use basically the same platform that already exists. This is a major advantage, even if it doesn't ultimately kill the competition. It's the reason why HD-DVD players will emerge first.

You can bet there is more to this picture than just manufacturering cost. BluRay has a very impressive slew of backing companies who are well aware of BluRays strengths and weaknesses. I know for without a doubt that sony will figure out a way to make their disc cost on par with HD-DVD. They have managed to do so against every technical advantage that HD DVD has had over them since each formats announcement.




I think that the extra storage capacity is a moot point for most viewers, who'll mostly be interested in getting their DVDs and sound at a higher resolution. The ability to store more data will not impact the primary reason that consumers will buy either format. Technical archivists will find Blu-Ray's storage capacity valuable, but who among us wants to watch extras for a week and a half just because they will fit?

The extra capacity IS a benefit in two ways. It means that it will support lossless audio and video which takes up more room than lossy audio and video signals. The less compression used, the better both will look and sound. Also added storage means there is plenty of room for any new A/V technology that comes in the future.

One more point: The original impetus for DVI and HDMI was the studios' desire to protect content, the same move that we have witnessed over the years with other formats. But it remains to be seen whether they are able to deny those with only analog connections the HD programming (#) that they spent hard-earned money to enjoy. A nasty legal battle is falling into place. At any rate, I wouldn't expect the studios to be able to pull the plug on analog at their impulse without serious opposition--not to imply that they won't initiate other means to make life hard for those who pose a threat to them. It's about time these old fogeys got creative about protecting their interests and started looking for ways to adapt to, rather than scuttle, new technologies out of the chute. So far, they have been able to parlay these moments of terror into increased revenue for themselves without impaing the "rights" of others (I know there's a lot more to be said on this subject), and I'm sure that a little ingenuity will help them this time as well. Standing in the way of progress won't cut it, for anyone.
Ed[/QUOTE]

Ed,
I absolutely agree with you here. I think the studios would be making a huge mistake if they didn't allow backwards compatability with the component outputs of millions and millions of digital T.V's already out in the field.

One thing that I am acutely aware of is that the studios do not really care about consumers. What they care about is pursueing and maintaining their revenue streams, it doesn't matter what the cost is, or the damage it does to us. I think they will go as far as to kill both formats before they will allow any non copy protected input to be used.

kexodusc
03-12-2005, 12:45 PM
Sir Terrence, the comments I've seen would suggest that HD-DVD could fill a disc with the highest quality audio and video formats available, and still have room for 2 more movies on each disc.
Is this an "exaggeration" on part of the HD-DVD camp? I mean,there comes a point when 30 GB or whatever is more than enough for any of these formats, and having extra provides no benefit until an even newer format (BluRay 2, 2160 i or p or something) becomes available.
What exactly could an HD-DVD hold in terms of minutes or hours at the highest possible resolution?

Smokey
03-12-2005, 01:32 PM
Sir Terrence, the comments I've seen would suggest that HD-DVD could fill a disc with the highest quality audio and video formats available, and still have room for 2 more movies on each disc.
Is this an "exaggeration" on part of the HD-DVD camp?

I am not Sir TT (thank God :D), but that is an exaggeration.

From what I have read, a typical HD movie will require 25 Gigabyte of storage. Throw in high quality audio and there might not be too much room left for extras on 30 GB HD-DVDs (not to mention another movie) :)

edtyct
03-12-2005, 02:08 PM
Sir T said: "The extra capacity IS a benefit in two ways. It means that it will support lossless audio and video which takes up more room than lossy audio and video signals. The less compression used, the better both will look and sound. Also added storage means there is plenty of room for any new A/V technology that comes in the future."

No argument there. My point was just that the average consumer might not care all that much about the storage difference between the two formats, only that they will allow significant improvements to audio and video. Both BluRay and HD-DVD will support Dolby Digital+ and DTS-HD, as well as the lossy versions that we have now.

Ed

kexodusc
03-12-2005, 02:09 PM
I am not Sir TT (thank God :D), but that is an exaggeration.

From what I have read, a typical HD movie will require 25 Gigabyte of storage. Throw in high quality audio and there might not be too much room left for extras on 30 GB HD-DVDs (not to mention another movie) :)

Thanks Smokey...Then we are left waiting to see if a superior format will fall to a more economic, corporate friendly format. Man, history really does repeat itself (VHS vs. Beta).

Does anyone have any idea how many people actually have HDTV's? I seem to recall that the figure was somewhere around 10-15%, and only starting to grow...this could affect how aggressively either of these formats pushes as well. Not to mention the max capability of the TV's owned...

Geoffcin
03-12-2005, 03:10 PM
I am not Sir TT (thank God :D), but that is an exaggeration.

From what I have read, a typical HD movie will require 25 Gigabyte of storage. Throw in high quality audio and there might not be too much room left for extras on 30 GB HD-DVDs (not to mention another movie) :)




For 1080p performance it will require a lot of bandwidth, but most HD sets sold today, including projectors, are only capable of 720p resolution. At 720p HD-DVD has plenty of space for uncompressed image and sound. Even if BlueRay is capable of uncompressed 1080p images there's only a handful of sets now that could display it.

DVD tech when it was released, was as easy as plugging it into your existing TV. HD-DVD & BlueRay will require a multi-thousand dollar investment by the consumer to realize it's potential. Just from this standpoint alone these higher-rez formats are up against really hard acceptance resistance.

kexodusc
03-12-2005, 03:39 PM
DVD tech when it was released, was as easy as plugging it into your existing TV. HD-DVD & BlueRay will require a multi-thousand dollar investment by the consumer to realize it's potential. Just from this standpoint alone these higher-rez formats are up against really hard acceptance resistance.
I think Geoffcin really nailed it here, and this is why I wouldn't be surprised to see HD-DVD win out, despite it all it gives up to BluRay.

Geoffcin
03-12-2005, 04:00 PM
I think Geoffcin really nailed it here, and this is why I wouldn't be surprised to see HD-DVD win out, despite it all it gives up to BluRay.



I really feel that there's going to be no winners in this race at all. When DVD came out it was a revolution. One that was, and is, very affordable. HD-DVD & BlueRay, for all the hype and mirrors, bring absolutely NOTHING to the table besides their higher resolution. It might have been sellable if the resolution of DVD were bad, but DVD's 480p is pretty darn good, and Dolby EX & DTE-ES are good audio formats too.

My money is no these formats to spend a decade trying to establish themselves with no clear winner, or even anything that could be remotely called acceptance. We have a precedent to look at called SACD/DVD-Audio.

Joe consumer is the guy that's going to make the call on these higher-rez formats, as we A/V junkies are just a tiny percentage of the equation when it come to consumer electronics.

Smokey
03-12-2005, 07:42 PM
Man, history really does repeat itself (VHS vs. Beta).

What is bothersome here is why manufactures decide to take different routes. Couldn't they all agree with one format and go from there. There are already enough confusion with the current technology :D


Even if BlueRay is capable of uncompressed 1080p images there's only a handful of sets now that could display it.

As I am sure you are well aware, 1080p format doesn't come from the disc, but rather the player (or the TV with internal decoders). So bandwidth might not be an issue here.

But I agree that it probably be a few years before it will be in mass market. Price dropping of HD displays will definitely be in favor of sooner than later. Most tube HDTVs are already selling under $1000 :)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-12-2005, 08:57 PM
What is bothersome here is why manufactures decide to take different routes. Couldn't they all agree with one format and go from there. There are already enough confusion with the current technology :D

There is huge fee's you get from liscensing the technology to other manufacturers. It is also a revenue stream that last for years(Sony and Philips are still getting paid for the CD as are the makers of the DVD format). Whoever wins, get's that income for years to come. When the enconomy turns sour, this could save your company from ruin, or at least keep you afloat thrrough it.




As I am sure you are well aware, 1080p format doesn't come from the disc, but rather the player (or the TV with internal decoders). So bandwidth might not be an issue here.

But I agree that it probably be a few years before it will be in mass market. Price dropping of HD displays will definitely be in favor of sooner than later. Most tube HDTVs are already selling under $1000 :)

I think BluRay larger pipeline(40mbps) gives it an advantage because it allow more gentle compression to the video, and up to 24/192khz audio in 7.1. This can be nothing but a plus for both audio and video.

kexodusc
03-13-2005, 04:26 AM
I really feel that there's going to be no winners in this race at all. When DVD came out it was a revolution. One that was, and is, very affordable. HD-DVD & BlueRay, for all the hype and mirrors, bring absolutely NOTHING to the table besides their higher resolution. It might have been sellable if the resolution of DVD were bad, but DVD's 480p is pretty darn good, and Dolby EX & DTE-ES are good audio formats too.

My money is no these formats to spend a decade trying to establish themselves with no clear winner, or even anything that could be remotely called acceptance. We have a precedent to look at called SACD/DVD-Audio.

Joe consumer is the guy that's going to make the call on these higher-rez formats, as we A/V junkies are just a tiny percentage of the equation when it come to consumer electronics.
The devil is in the details...I'm not so sure how much better HD-DVD or BluRay will be than 480i DVD (until my new progressive scan DVD unit arrives, I don't even know what 480p looks like). I know many that claim HDTV broadcasts make DVD unbearable though...exaggeration? Maybe, we'll see.
I don't doubt that at some point there will be a superior successor to the DVD. These things just take time. I'm not ready to write off SACD/DVD-Audio either, these are both still in their infancy as far as I'm concerned. Until the labels really try to push these to market with effort, it's too early to call these a failure. I think these formats haven't been slowed because of the format itself, but rather the lack of affordable players and awareness. These things have only been cheap enough for the non-audiophile/fanatic for maybe a year now.

However, these new audio and video formats might actually end up helping each other. Eventually people will buy new players, I'm sure they will be quasi-universal (playing most of the above formats, if not all). Then I wouldn't be surprised to see all new releases being hybrid discs, CD/DVD-A or CD/SACD for audio, and DVD/BluRay or DVD/HD-DVD for video. Most industries force feed new innovations to the masses. I see no reason why the a/v industry would be any different.

I just think all of this is at least 2 or 3 years away.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-13-2005, 11:39 AM
I really feel that there's going to be no winners in this race at all. When DVD came out it was a revolution. One that was, and is, very affordable. HD-DVD & BlueRay, for all the hype and mirrors, bring absolutely NOTHING to the table besides their higher resolution.

I agree, there are going to be no winners when this one is over. I however disagree with you about the new formats not bringing anything to the table. They bring the promise of uncompressed video and audio, which is a HUGE plus. With uncompressed video that means no misquito blocking, edge enhancement, pixelation or other compression artifacts. With audio it means a bit for bit transfer of the signal without the damaging effects of lossy codecs. Since I have heard the difference between the printmaster soundtrack and the encoded after effects of both Dolby digital and Dts, I can tell you that the differences are pretty dramatic with DD and half bit rate Dts. The idea of having 7.1 at 24/192khz resolution is pretty amazing as is 1080P which is TRUE HD. I would gladly trade this incarnation of DVD with its limited pipeline of 9.8mbps transfer rate for 36-40mbps anyday.




It might have been sellable if the resolution of DVD were bad, but DVD's 480p is pretty darn good, and Dolby EX & DTE-ES are good audio formats too.

Maybe I am alone here in saying that 480p is just a start. So much compression has to be applied to the video at this resolution that it looks nothing like the original 35mm print it comes from. Video currently does not resolve enough color to compete with 35mm. 1080p brings us that much closer. While 480p may be good, 1080p is much better in every way. As far as Dolby EX and Dts ES, well if you compared DD at 448kbps and Dts in its current 754kbps to the original printmaster soundtrack, you could easily ascertain that we could do better than what we are doing now. Dts at full bit rate is a pretty big improvement over Dts at half bit rate. Lossless Dts is a improvement over both.



My money is no these formats to spend a decade trying to establish themselves with no clear winner, or even anything that could be remotely called acceptance. We have a precedent to look at called SACD/DVD-Audio.

I don't think we can look at this (IMO) quite the same way as SACD and DVD-A. Both of these new format really are victims of record companies cutting back because of reduced profits in the last few years. They are not being pushed or advertised at all. Once the financial picture of the industry improves, you will probably see new life breathed into both of these formats(if it is not too late).


Joe consumer is the guy that's going to make the call on these higher-rez formats, as we A/V junkies are just a tiny percentage of the equation when it come to consumer electronics.

Keep in mind Geoff, it was us early adopters that got DVD on the map in a hurry. I think if we sit on the sidelines, then neither will have a chance.

Geoffcin
03-13-2005, 01:15 PM
I agree, there are going to be no winners when this one is over. I however disagree with you about the new formats not bringing anything to the table. They bring the promise of uncompressed video and audio, which is a HUGE plus. With uncompressed video that means no misquito blocking, edge enhancement, pixelation or other compression artifacts. With audio it means a bit for bit transfer of the signal without the damaging effects of lossy codecs. Since I have heard the difference between the printmaster soundtrack and the encoded after effects of both Dolby digital and Dts, I can tell you that the differences are pretty dramatic with DD and half bit rate Dts. The idea of having 7.1 at 24/192khz resolution is pretty amazing as is 1080P which is TRUE HD. I would gladly trade this incarnation of DVD with its limited pipeline of 9.8mbps transfer rate for 36-40mbps anyday.

I absolutely agree that HD is a large upgrade from standard def in quality. Quality was NOT {IMHO} why DVD's became so huge though. One of DVD's main advantage over VHS was that it was random access. This feature was, and is to me the best feature. It alone spelled the death knell of VHS, even if the quality was the same, which it is not. Of course another major feature is that the disks are compact, and although their robustness is not as great as I might have hoped, it's still light years ahead of VHS. There's many more perks that DVD brings to the table that made it a revolution over VHS; added features like bio's, and things like that make it a far more value added product.

So my point is;

HD-DVD bring nothing more than their higher rez to the table, as opposed to DVD's myriad more advantages of VHS.




Maybe I am alone here in saying that 480p is just a start. So much compression has to be applied to the video at this resolution that it looks nothing like the original 35mm print it comes from. Video currently does not resolve enough color to compete with 35mm. 1080p brings us that much closer. While 480p may be good, 1080p is much better in every way. As far as Dolby EX and Dts ES, well if you compared DD at 448kbps and Dts in its current 754kbps to the original printmaster soundtrack, you could easily ascertain that we could do better than what we are doing now. Dts at full bit rate is a pretty big improvement over Dts at half bit rate. Lossless Dts is a improvement over both.


Again, I agree 1080i, (of which I have about a dozen channels or so) IS significantly better than 480p. I expect 1080p to be better yet, but not by any quantum leap. Audio wise I am not so sure that a big leap exists. A movie is a total A/V experience, and as such you do not have the time or effort to decern subtle differences in audio as you would if you were listening to high-quality audio only. I'm not saying that DTS-HD would not be better, but under most circumstances you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.





I don't think we can look at this (IMO) quite the same way as SACD and DVD-A. Both of these new format really are victims of record companies cutting back because of reduced profits in the last few years. They are not being pushed or advertised at all. Once the financial picture of the industry improves, you will probably see new life breathed into both of these formats(if it is not too late).

Keep in mind Geoff, it was us early adopters that got DVD on the map in a hurry. I think if we sit on the sidelines, then neither will have a chance.

SACD & DVD-Audio are both lost causes in a market sense. Yes, the record companies dropped the advert budgets like hot potatoes, but these guys are not dumb. It was only when the consumers decided that it wasn't worth the cost or bother to upgrade that this happened. Again, it's a near perfect analogy; CD gave consumers random access to music, this alone spelled the death knell for Cassette & LP. Look at the sales of LP now, they are almost a mirror of DVD-Audio & SACD. My guess it's because the SAME consumers (~5%) are buying them! These consumers are US, the people that actually care about quality, not "Joe consumer" who is just happy to fill up his 300 disk changer and be done with it.

Do I see a future for BlueRay and HD-DVD? Yes, of course, but it will be on more of a scale of Laserdisc players, not the tide with which DVD rolled over VHS.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
03-14-2005, 01:17 PM
I absolutely agree that HD is a large upgrade from standard def in quality. Quality was NOT {IMHO} why DVD's became so huge though. One of DVD's main advantage over VHS was that it was random access. This feature was, and is to me the best feature. It alone spelled the death knell of VHS, even if the quality was the same, which it is not. Of course another major feature is that the disks are compact, and although their robustness is not as great as I might have hoped, it's still light years ahead of VHS. There's many more perks that DVD brings to the table that made it a revolution over VHS; added features like bio's, and things like that make it a far more value added product.

I guess what advantages DVD brought over Laserdisc(VHS was not my medium of choice) and 35mm film for me was different for you. I got into DVD's strictly for the better sound and picture. Random access meant nothing to me because I watch movies in a linear fashion, and don't really access scenes randomly. Another reason was that as you stated it was a smaller medium than I was using at the time, required less maintainence(washing 35mm film everytime you wanted to watch it is a pain), and was easier to purchase and store. Random access and the extra I got on the laserdisc platform.


So my point is;

HD-DVD bring nothing more than their higher rez to the table, as opposed to DVD's myriad more advantages of VHS.

When you count the larger storage capacity, and larger pipline for the stream of digital signals(up to 40mbps) it can bring so much more to the table than DVD ever could. I think it is a little shortsighted to think the only thing these new formats could bring to the table is higher reolution picture and sound.



Again, I agree 1080i, (of which I have about a dozen channels or so) IS significantly better than 480p. I expect 1080p to be better yet, but not by any quantum leap.

Maybe the picture will be marginally better, but isn't this how intorducing new formats has been over the years? VHS was fair, laserdisc got it a little better, DVD took it from there, and BluRay and HD DVD takes it another step. If you never have heard 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio, you are in for a real treat. You think that DD and Dts sound good, just wait.




Audio wise I am not so sure that a big leap exists.

Having not heard 8 channels of uncompressed 24/192khz might make you come to that conclusion, but it sound much better than 20/48khz at 1.5mbps compressed(early Dts) way better than 18/48khz 448kbps Dolby digital, and most certainly better than the 16/44.1khz redbook standard. I think you need to hear very high resolution signals spread over more channels before you can come to this conclusion.




A movie is a total A/V experience, and as such you do not have the time or effort to decern subtle differences in audio as you would if you were listening to high-quality audio only. I'm not saying that DTS-HD would not be better, but under most circumstances you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Oh, I really disagree here. Improved imaging is very noticeable. Clearly hearing low level details that are lost in compression is a real ear opener(you would be surprised how many low level effects are lost during compression), and just having dialog, effects and music with much more clarity are all very noticeable differences. More channels with higher resolution is definately a big step up from what we currently have





SACD & DVD-Audio are both lost causes in a market sense. Yes, the record companies dropped the advert budgets like hot potatoes, but these guys are not dumb. It was only when the consumers decided that it wasn't worth the cost or bother to upgrade that this happened.

I think everyone is making a huge mistake in counting both DVD-A and SACD out. These are still VERY young formats. It took some time for the CD to overtake both vinyl and cassette, and it will take some time for the new formats to catch on as well. Every new format cannot have the quick success that the DVD has enjoyed. That is just unrealistic and ill-logical




Again, it's a near perfect analogy; CD gave consumers random access to music, this alone spelled the death knell for Cassette & LP.

I think you are giving much to much credit to random access as the death knell to both of these formats. CD's were easier to maintain, carried as much music as both the cassette and LP, and were easier to store. The had a longer lifetime than cassettes, and it was a medium that was fully pushed by the record companies. SACD and DVD-A are not getting that push.



Look at the sales of LP now, they are almost a mirror of DVD-Audio & SACD. My guess it's because the SAME consumers (~5%) are buying them! These consumers are US, the people that actually care about quality, not "Joe consumer" who is just happy to fill up his 300 disk changer and be done with it.

According to a Surround Sound financed poll those sales of of LP's are a completely different consumer than those currently supporting SACD and DVD-A. Most lovers of the analog sound are not big fans of digital. The people who are supporting these two formats are much like myself. They don't like taking care of records, loves surround sound, and enjoys their music in high resolution.


Do I see a future for BlueRay and HD-DVD? Yes, of course, but it will be on more of a scale of Laserdisc players, not the tide with which DVD rolled over VHS.

In the begining I think you are right. But just like with the DVD the early adopters are going to pump up the postitive attributes of both new formats, and that will push the Joe blo to see what all of the fuss is about. Laserdiscs never really caught on because they were large and cumbersome, and you had to flip the over after an hour. Not very convient.

IMO, it is probably too soon to tell which direction these formats will take. I am pretty excited about BluRay, but a little less on HD DVD because I think future added content, features, and the ability to do any interactive stuff will run into storage problems before too long. Then of course, I may be wrong.

edtyct
03-14-2005, 02:27 PM
Two quick comments on this topic: First does anyone remember the slogan "perfect sound forever" that accompanied and justified the launch of the CD? It was meant to be a big selling point, though (I don't know how else to describe it) it was a big fib. At the time, the brick wall D/A converters were so harsh that even the most humble analog system sounded smoother, despite the bumps, scratches, and bad pressings. CD's novely and convenience may have put it over the top, but the promise of a sound quality beyond compare in the past, present, or future was meant to confer a certain cachet on it. No doubt, Philips, Sony, and everyone other manufacturer on the bandwagon were proud of what they were offering, enough to obscure a clear-eyed look, or listen, to it. Anyway, not until well into its 16-bit life were analog mavens willing to concede that CD technology had even reached the bottom level of vinyl's sound capability. Nowadays, I've found that the only digital media that flip analog lovers' skirt are SACD and DVD-A, which seem to have been accepted like a saving grace. Check out the high-end vinyl sellers, like Acoustic Soiunds; many feature SACDs and DVD-As, with a smattering of gold disks and such with their extensive vinyl inventories, and even Michael Fremer has embraced the two formats on musicangle.

Okay, a little more. I loved the laserdisc era. If was fun to have that kind of video quality and that kind of attention to detail. But laserdiscs were an analog video technology, only later to acquire digital sound, that looked remarkably like the recently outdated LP record. Plus, they could be expensive, as could their players, and you couldn't record on them. The laserdisc was destined to survive as only an enthusiasts' option until something smaller, cheaper, digital, and more versatile came along. Most average consumers of rental or bought movies had no inkling of what laserdiscs were. The fear among those of us who bought them was that the DVD threatening to supplant them would represent a dumbing down of the home cinematic experience. We also worried that despite DVD's potential to produce better video, the manufacturers would have little incentive to deliver it to a crowd used to VHS tapes. We were wrong; DVD came out like gangbusters. It looked and sounded good and became the fastest-growing electronics format in our admittedly short history. Despite the obligatory bad transfers, titles, decisions, etc., DVD in general lived up to its hype, even learning from laserdisc the value of extras (perhaps an embarrassment of riches).

Unlike laserdisc, or anything else for that matter, hi def DVDs seem to me the perfect next step. The surrounding sound and vision technologies are well in place for it, at a time when they are still able to generate excitement together. No one is going to be uncomfortable with the new disks, in the way that technophobes or stick in the muds would be with unproven CDs. The fact that most of society hasn't yet caught up to the advances in video/audio resolution is no argument that they won't, even if many will wait until they have no choice. The buzz from early adopters and the mainstream press will eventually usher it all into the mainstream. Analog TVs will become a thing of the past, even if the last of Mohicans surrender because it becomes to expensive and complicated not to, and our sons and daughters will force audio stragglers to get with the program, despite their MP3s, iPods, and what not. It may take time, but the digital onslaught is not to be denied.

Ed

Woochifer
03-14-2005, 03:54 PM
Maybe the picture will be marginally better, but isn't this how intorducing new formats has been over the years? VHS was fair, laserdisc got it a little better, DVD took it from there, and BluRay and HD DVD takes it another step. If you never have heard 7.1 channels of uncompressed audio, you are in for a real treat. You think that DD and Dts sound good, just wait.

I think that the jump from VHS to DVD is a big enough one to justify the wholesale format change that we have seen. Been to a Blockbuster lately? From what I can gather, it's well over 80% DVD in those stores now. Pretty dramatic turnaround considering that

Unfortunately, I don't see the jump from DVD to the HD formats as an equally compelling transition. Having the potential to go up to 1080p represents a clear-cut improvement, but for how much of the consumer market is the current DVD standard "good enough"? Also, having a format war at the outset does not bode well for the HD video formats gaining traction. This can only slow down the momentum of these formats in the market. VHS didn't really take off (i.e. produce more revenue than the theater box office) until it clearly beat out Betamax in the market. Sony had to concede that format war fairly quickly.

The way that things are lining up right now, you got studios with a vested interest in the new formats, Sony in particular with the Blu-ray format and Warner with its part of the DVD patents. Since Sony now has control over a good portion of the content, they won't have as much incentive to concede this time around. Hopefully, universal disc players can come out in short order, so that this does not have to turn into a prolonged pissing match.

In much the same way that the CD format came out before the technology was truly ready, I think the DVD was also released too soon. No matter how much the digital audio and video technology storms ahead, both formats might now be too entrenched to supplant anytime soon.

I would love to hear uncompressed 7.1, but that's the other half of the upgrade equation that might take some time to ramp up.


I think everyone is making a huge mistake in counting both DVD-A and SACD out. These are still VERY young formats. It took some time for the CD to overtake both vinyl and cassette, and it will take some time for the new formats to catch on as well. Every new format cannot have the quick success that the DVD has enjoyed. That is just unrealistic and ill-logical

I really hope you're right in keeping DVD-A and SACD in the picture. Unfortunately, the momentum seems to have shifted away from high res audio.

I think Sony had an opportunity to make SACD the de facto standard by making all of their new CDs dual layered CD/SACD hybrid releases. But, Sony's embrace of Dual Disc (which is more about value added DVD content than high res audio) is a step in a different direction.

The Dual Discs I've read about generally include an "Enhanced Stereo" mix with 48 kHz sampling rate and various bit depths depending on space availability, and optional content that might include video content or a 5.1 Dolby Digital multichannel audio mix. If Dual Disc takes off, it will be good in that more multichannel mixes can finally see the light of day, however, the audio quality in 5.1 DD is a big step down compared to DVD-A and SACD.

I'm looking to make the jump to DVD-A and SACD when I upgrade my DVD player (after getting the HDTV). I just hope that the multichannel audio party's still going by the time I arrive. I'm already enjoying the DTS and DD mixes on the DVD-A discs that I've already bought, and I would hate to think that the future of multichannel music is limited to that level of audio quality.

The jury's still out on the high res formats , and I hope that somebody gets their act together because DVD-A and SACD deserve to get a legitimate opportunity to succeed or fail in the market. Right now, that opportunity has been squandered with the worst botched format release that I've seen since quad in the 70s.

kexodusc
03-14-2005, 05:59 PM
I'm loving this hi-rez DVD-A/SACD stuff. Just brought home a Toshiba 4960, and Yamaha C750 (borrowed bosses Yammie to see if I like it better).
Picture on the Yammie is a mite better, but I can't really tell a difference in sound between the two.
It's been months since I've heard the hi-rez stuff, forgot how good it was...I've only got 13 SACD/DVD-A's right now, but you can bet I'll be searching for more.

I think every month, little by little, people are buying these players...in fact, more and more manufacturers are making inexpensive "universal" players affordable...this bodes well for both formats.
I'm also seeing more and more Music DVD's in stores, so I think the world is getting into multi-channel audio one step at a time.
Wait until some creative musicians start really taking advantage of the multi-channel aspect (rather than re-mastering), and then we'll see what happens.

If HD-DVD or BluRay have this level of sound quality at their disposal, we're in for a real treat.

...reviews on the C750 and 4960 due later this week.

(edit: gotta tell ya though, swapping 6 analog cables in a tight, cable infested area is a real pain, I'm still ticked off at them for going this route, hope the new video formats are smarter).

Tarheel_
03-17-2005, 09:52 AM
First, i disagree with others who say DVD is in it's prime...actually I feel it's past its prime. Quality wise, Superbit is probabaly as far as it'll go. Two disc SE's don't excite me.

Second, i bought one of the first DVD players in 97. So having owned DVDs for 8+ years now...well, i'm excited about new technology and a whole new format.

Three, to prepare for the new format, i recently traded all my DVDs (except my overall faves) to Blockbuster for $8 each. Total sold....around 80 DVDs. Used credit to rent or buy special ed's of my favorites.(star wars,etc.). Stuff i need to get me through.

Four, can't wait to see my favorites in a new format which should surpass in both audio/video/extras over DVD.

Fifth, as a HT lover, it's fun to explore new formats...you know reading, research, comparision shopping...remember when you discovered DVDs? Ah, the joy!

kexodusc
03-17-2005, 12:01 PM
DVD past its prime?

Technically I don't think that's accurate...DVD hasn't deteriorated in performance, it's improved...so it's still in it's prime...hell, I suppose VHS is still in it's prime.
There's just better players out there now (no pun intended)